GIFT   OF 


PAPIAS 

AND  HIS  CONTEMPORARIES 

A  STUDY  OF  RELIGIOUS  THOUGHT 

IN   THE   SECOND 

CENTURY 

BY 
EDWARD   H.  HALL 


BOSTON  AND  NEW  YORK 

HOUGHTON,  MIFFLIN   AND  COMPANY 

(Cbe  iiitirwi&e  pre#»,  Cambnbgc 

1899 


COPYRIGHT,   1899,  BY  EDWARD  H.  HALL 
ALL   RIGHTS   RESERVED 


CONTENTS 

:HAP.  PACK 

I.  AN  EARLY  INVESTIGATOR i 

II.  PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE     .        .  21 

III.  Two  LEARNED  DOCTORS 63 

IV.  THE  MILLENNIAL  REIGN       .  106 
V.  THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS    ....  138 

VI.  THE  MYSTIC  GOSPEL 199 

VII.  APPENDIX 241 

INDEX 315 


411470 


PAPIAS 

CHAPTER  I 

AN   EARLY   INVESTIGATOR 

THE  reader  of  the  Christian  Scriptures  finds 
many  unsolved  problems  still  remaining  to  per- 
plex him.  Even  the  unpracticed  eye  detects  in 
them  tokens  of  varied  sources  and  successive 
stages  of  growth.  Not  only  are  they  confess- 
edly by  different  authors  and  written  at  differ- 
ent periods,  but  each  book  by  itself  often  shows 
sighs  of  a  composite  character.  Whence  came 
these  several  layers  ;  when  and  how  ? 

The  easiest  questions  to  ask  are  sometimes 
the  hardest  to  answer,  especially  where  reli- 
gions are  concerned,  whose  infancy  is  so  sure  to 
be  obscure  and  unrecorded,  and  which  conceal 
so  carefully  the  secrets  of  their  early  growth, 
—  not  intentionally,  of  course,  but  of  necessity. 
Before  the  world  has  awoke  to  their  signifi- 
cance, or  the  actors  themselves  become  aware 
of  the  r61e  they  are  filling,  the  incidents  that 
attended  their  birth  have  already  been  lost,  and 


;   tt<  A  ',•'        PAPIAS 

it  is  impossible  to  recover  them.  In  the  case 
of  Christianity,  more  than  a  century  passed 
before  it  gained  that  consciousness  of  itself 
or  sense  of  individuality  which  made  its  early 
hours  sacred  to  its  thought,  or  bade  it  treasure 
its  primitive  records,  or  even  the  story  of  its 
founders.  Then  it  was  too  late ;  too  late,  that 
is,  to  recall  with  any  vividness  such  far-away 
occurrences,  or  the  personalities  engaged  in 
them.  Even  the  twelve  Apostles,  with  two  or 
three  exceptions,  are  mere  names  to  us;  still 
more  the  obscure  chroniclers  who  so  labori- 
ously gathered  for  us,  here  and  there,  whatever 
had  survived  from  distant  and  half-forgotten 
times. 

To  trace  these  several  compilations  back,  one 
by  one,  to  their  original  sources  is  an  endless 
and  dispiriting  task,  as  the  mass  of  scholarly 
commentaries,  with  their  conflicting  hypothe- 
ses, abundantly  show.  But  suppose  we  try  a 
more  modest  experiment :  place  ourselves  mid- 
way in  the  process,  and  see  what  story  that 
single  moment  tells.  Let  us  take  the  first 
writer  of  distinction  after  the  apostolic  times, 
and  learn  from  him  what  we  can  of  the  state 
of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  and  the  attitude  of 
Christian  thought,  with  which  he  and  his  con- 
temporaries were  familiar.  There  are  so  few 


AN   EARLY  INVESTIGATOR  3 

living  personalities  emerging  from  those  event- 
ful hours  that  we  are  in  duty  bound  to  make 
the  most  of  any  who  can  be  found. 

Such  a  character  was  Papias,  bishop  of  Hie- 
rapolis  in  Phrygia ;  not  indeed  the  very  first  of 
whom  we  hear,  but  the  first  after  the  death  of 
the  Apostle  Paul  to  present  any  marked  individ- 
uality. With  our  modern  associations,  we  might 
not  look  for  such  a  personage  in  Phrygia. 
Christianity  has  so  entirely  lost  its  hold  upon 
Asia  Minor  that  it  requires  some  mental  effort 
to  remember  that  it  was  in  that  direction  that 
Paul  first  turned  as  the  best  field  for  his  mis- 
sionary effort;  or  that  before  the  end  of  the 
first  century  a  more  numerous  circle  of  Christian 
churches  had  appeared  in  the  western  section 
of  Asia  Minor  than  in  any  other  region  of  equal 
size.1  In  point  of  fact,  for  two  centuries  at 
least  Ephesus,  with  its  neighboring  communi- 
ties, held  its  own  with  Jerusalem,  Rome,  and 
Alexandria,  as  an  important  Christian  centre, 
with  more  individuality  of  its  own  than  either. 

1  Rev.  i.  ii ;  ii.;  iii.  Hierapolis  does  not  appear  among  the 
"  seven  churches,"  but  it  lay  within  a  few  miles  of  Colosse  and 
Laodicea,  and  evidently  stood  in  some  personal  relations  with 
the  Apostle  Paul.  (Col.  iv.  13.)  For  full  accounts  of  this 
interesting  region,  see  Lightfoot's  Introduc.  to  Sf.  Paul's  Epis. 
to  Col.  andPhilem.,  pp.  1-72;  Renan's Hist,  des  Origines,\&.. 
126-130, 351-360 ;  Ramsay's  Cities  of  Phrygia,  i.  ch.  iii.,  xii. 


4  PAPIAS 

Hardly  one  of  the  great  movements  which 
agitated  the  life  and  thought  of  Christendom 
during  that  period  had  not  intimate  relations 
with  Asia  Minor,  even  if  it  did  not  find  its 
birth  there.1  To  study  the  life  of  a  Phrygian 
bishop  of  the  second  century,  therefore,  is  to 
get  an  inner  view,  in  so  far  as  the  annals  of  the 
time  can  be  recovered  at  all,  of  whatever  was 
most  important  or  serious  in  the  early  growth 
of  our  faith. 

Papias  was  born  probably  towards  the  end  of 
the  first  century  of  our  era,  and  lived  far  into 
the  second.  If  we  think  of  him  as  in  advan- 
cing years  but  full  activity  about  the  middle 
of  the  century,  we  shall  come  as  near  to  chro- 
nological accuracy  as  the  misty  data  of  that 
epoch  allow.2  We  must  not  attempt  to  extort 
from  the  meagre  records  at  our  disposal  too 
realistic  details  of  the  life  of  a  bishop  at  a  time 
when  that  title  had  assumed  so  little  of  its  later 
dignity,  but  the  few  facts  that  are  given  have 
a  peculiar  interest  for  us.  He  was  almost  the 
first  church  official,  apparently,  to  occupy  him- 
self in  studying  or  collecting  the  records  of  the 

1  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  n,  2;  iv.  14,  3;  iv.  26,  i ;  v.  3,  4; 
v.  14;  v.  i6>  v.  18.      Comp.  Weizsacker,  Apostolic  Age  of 
Chris.  Church,  ii.  169. 

2  Appendix,  Note  A. 


AN   EARLY   INVESTIGATOR  5 

past.  He  shows  himself  an  indefatigable  inves- 
tigator, letting  no  chance  go  by  which  would 
acquaint  him  with  the  sacred  hours  when  Jesus 
himself  was  still  walking  with  his  disciples,  or 
the  hours  only  less  sacred  when  those  disciples 
were  yet  living  to  repeat  the  sayings  of  the 
Master.  The  result  of  these  inquiries  seems 
to  have  been  a  work  in  five  volumes,  entitled 
"Interpretations  of  the  Lord's  Sayings."1  It 
is  difficult  to  estimate  the  help  we  should  have 
towards  an  understanding  of  our  Gospels  and 
the  conditions  of  their  composition,  if  this 
treatise  still  survived.  Unfortunately,  it  has 
been  lost,  but  the  few  extracts  from  it  which 
later  writers  and  historians  have  preserved  are 
of  quite  incomparable  interest.  In  his  search 
for  materials  Papias  seems  to  have  found  no 
written  documents  which  covered  the  ground, 
or  none  at  least  that  carried  official  weight ;  and 
he  turns  accordingly  to  such  living  men  as  could 
still  recall,  even  at  second  hand,  any  reminis- 
cences of  the  Lord  or  his  disciples.  How  he 
went  to  work  for  this  purpose  he  tells  us  with 
delightful  simplicity. 

He  addresses   his  work   to   some   unknown 
friend,  and  in  his  Preface,  apparently  after  some 
account  of  the  sources  from  which  he  has  gath- 
i  Note  B. 


6  PAPIAS 

ered  his  information,  he  adds :  "  Nor  shall  I 
hesitate  to  relate  to  you,  in  addition  to  my 
expositions,  whatever  I  have  at  any  tiihe  learned 
from  the  Presbyters,  having  intrusted  it  care- 
fully to  my  memory,  and  vouching  for  its  truth. 
For  I  did  not  care,  as  many  do,  for  those  who 
have  much  to  say,  but  rather  for  such  as  have 
actual  facts  to  give  us  ;  nor  yet  for  the  retailers 
of  strange  doctrines,  but  for  those  precepts 
only  which  the  Lord  has  committed  to  believ- 
ers, and  which  emanate  therefore  from  the 
truth  itself.  So  whenever  any  follower  of 
the  Presbyters  came  along,  I  got  from  him  the 
very  words  of  the  Presbyters ;  what  Andrew 
or  Peter  said,  what  Philip  or  Thomas  said,  or 
James  or  John  or  Matthew,  or  any  other  disciple 
of  the  Lord;  or  what  Aristion  and  John  the 
Presbyter,  disciples  of  the  Lord,  have  to  say. 
For  I  never  felt  that  I  got  so  much  from  the 
written  page  as  from  the  living  and  unforgotten 
voice."  1 

Now  could  there  be  a  healthier  breeze  over 
the  dry  wastes  of  church  history  than  reaches 
us  through  these  old-time  sentences?  They 
breathe  of  fresh  woods  and  pastures,  where 
the  garnering  has  till  now  been  slight,  and 
the  laborers  are  still  but  few.  We  are  in  the 

i  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  39,  3,  4.     See  Note  C. 


AN   EARLY   INVESTIGATOR  7 

creative  epoch,  it  seems,  within  the  echo  of 
living  voices ;  standing  at  the  beginning  of 
things,  when  the  Christian  Scriptures  are  not 
made  but  making.  The  first  generations  have 
gone,  it  is  true,  but  their  followers  are  still  lin- 
gering on  the  stage,  and  have  many  things  to 
tell  which  no  written  document  has  yet  reported. 
Here  is  one  reverent  inquirer  at  least  who 
knows  their  worth,  and  is  determined  that  these 
precious  memories  shall  not  be  lost.  He  did 
not  succeed  as  he  would  have  wished.  The 
church  in  later  times  showed  slight  appreciation 
of  his  work,  or  at  least  took  little  pains  to  pre- 
serve it.  All  the  more  gratitude  is  due,  then, 
for  these  scanty  fragments  which  have  defied 
neglect  and  found  their  way  into  our  hands. 
They  give  a  vivid  idea  of  the  perils  through 
which  all  the  memorials  and  records  of  those 
unlettered  days  must  have  passed.1 

1  This  naive  delight  in  the  spoken  as  distinct  from  the 
written  word  is  an  attractive  characteristic  of  a  primitive 
epoch.  Even  to-day,  no  doubt,  could  we  hear  from  some 
wide-awake  narrator  of  good  memory  tales  of  the  French 
Revolution  or  the  Napoleonic  wars  told  him  by  his  grand- 
father, we  should  listen  more  eagerly  than  to  our  Carlyles 
or  our  Taines ;  but  Papias  had  smaller  choice,  and  so  was 
the  more  keen  for  oral  reminiscences.  This  reliance  upon 
verbal  tradition  lasted  long  after  Papias.  At  the  end  of  the 
century  Clement  of  Alexandria  gives  us  "  memoranda  of 
brilliant  and  vivid  discourses  which  he  had  been  privileged 


8  PAPIAS 

It  is  not  to  be  understood,  of  course,  that 
Papias  found  no  Christian  literature  of  impor- 
tance at  his  disposal.  A  full  century  had 
passed  since  the  death  of  Jesus  ;  a  very  marked 
century  in  Roman  annals,  which  must  certainly 
have  left  some  trace  in  Christian  annals  as 
well.1  Indeed,  a  familiar  passage,  written  per- 
haps about  this  time,  assures  us  that  "Many 
have  taken  in  hand  to  set  forth  in  order  a  decla- 
ration of  those  things  which  are  most  surely 
believed  among  us,  even  as  they  delivered  them 
unto  us,  which  from  the  beginning  were  eye- 
witnesses, and  ministers  of  the  word."  2  As  it 

to  hear,"  from  men  who  "  had  handed  down  the  genuine 
tradition  of  the  blessed  doctrine  straight  from  Peter  and 
James,  John  and  Paul,  the  son  receiving  it  from  the  father." 
(Strom.,  i.  i,  1 1.)  He  declares  that  Paul  wrote  his  Epis*tle  to 
the  Hebrews  in  Hebrew,  and  states  the  order  of  the  four 
Gospels,  wholly  on  the  authority  of  "  the  ancient  Presbyters." 
(Euseb.  vi.  14,  2,  5.)  In  an  extraordinary  passage  from  Ire- 
naeus  we  find  that  eminent  church  Father,  who  wrote  about 
A.  D.  1 80,  with  all  the  four  Gospels  before  him,  insisting 
that  Jesus  lived  into  old  age,  because  certain  elders  who  had 
known  the  Apostle  John  in  Asia  Minor  had  so  assured  him. 
(ffcer.,  ii.  22,  5.) 

An  interesting  parallel  to  the  Papias  passage  is  found  in 
Arrian's  Dedication  of  the  Discourses  of  Epictetus,  who 
was  also  a  native  of  Hierapolis  not  far  from  this  time. 
(Higginson's  Works  of  Epictetus,  p.  i.) 

1  Pliny  the   Younger,  Tacitus,  and   Suetonius  were  all 
writing  during  this  period. 

2  Luke  i.  i,  2. 


AN   EARLY   INVESTIGATOR  9 

happens,  we  have  two  or  three  faint  but  sugges- 
tive clues  to  the  materials  which  Papias  had  at 
his  command.  "  Papias,"  so  Eusebius  tells  us, 
"  introduced  evidence  from  the  First  Epistle  of 
John,  as  well  as  from  that  of  Peter.  He  also 
relates  a  story  found  in  the  Gospel  according 
to  the  Hebrews  of  a  woman  accused  before  the 
Lord  of  many  sins."1  Here  is  a  Gospel,  then, 
and  two  Epistles.  Apparently  he  made  use  also 
of  our  Revelation  or  Apocalypse,  borrowing 
from  it  its  predictions  of  the  coming  kingdom 
of  Christ.2  Here  also  is  an  instance  of  the 
personal  traditions  which  he  gathered  from 
apostolic  circles,  showing  that  in  those  uncriti- 
cal hours  credible  reports  and  incredible  passed 

1  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  39,  1 7.     This  story  of  the  woman,  which  is 
probably  the  same  which  has  come  down  to  us  as  part  of 
the  Fourth  Gospel  (John  viii.  3-11),  Eusebius  seems  to  have 
known  as  part  of  the  ancient  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews.     In 
those  days  quotations  were  made  with  such  singular  loose- 
ness that  it  is  impossible  to  say  in  this  case  whether  Papias 
himself  quotes  from   the  Gospel  of   Hebrews  or  Eusebius 
simply  infers  that  he  does  ;  or  whether  in  the  case  of  I  John 
and  i  Peter  it  is  Papias  or  only  Eusebius  who  mentions  those 
Epistles   by  name.     Eusebius,  like  many  a  more  modern 
commentator,  may  have  accepted  the  vaguest  resemblance 
in  an  ancient  writing  to  a  New  Testament  passage  as  proof 
positive   that  the  writer  had  the  New  Testament  in  full 
before  him. 

For  Gospel  according  to  Hebrews,  see  Note  D. 

2  See  Note  E. 


io  PAPIAS 

current  together.  Our  chronicler  would  have 
been  inconceivably  in  advance  of  his  age  had 
he  turned  a  deaf  ear  to  the  supernatural.  In 
those  times,  it  seems,  the  Apostle  Philip,  or 
his  surviving  daughters,  lived  in  Hierapolis,  and 
Papias  got  from  them  many  extraordinary  tales 
of  that  Apostle's  experiences.  Eusebius  records 
one  or  two  of  them.  "  Papias  tells  us  how,  in 
Philip's  time  (evidently  by  Philip's  miraculous 
power),  a  man  was  raised  from  the  dead.  And 
another  marvelous  thing,  too,  that  happened  to 
Justus  surnamed  Barsabas  :  how,  having  drunk 
a  poisonous  drug,  he  experienced  no  harm  from 
it,  through  the  grace  of  the  Lord." 1 

The  Gospel  according  to  the  Hebrews,  famil- 
iar as  it  seems  to  have  been  to  both  Papias  and 
Eusebius,  has  long  ago  disappeared ;  but  two 
other  early  Gospels  mentioned  by  Papias  have 
fortunately  survived,  and  any  descriptions  of 
them  at  this  formative  period  are  of  the  highest 
value.  No  more  instructive  passage  has  come 
down  to  us  than  that  in  which  Papias  gives 
us  his  impressions  of  Mark  and  Matthew.  He 

1  Hist.  Ecc.)  iii.  39, 9.  The  inference  of  course  is  that  these 
miracles  were  performed  by  the  Apostle  Philip,  though  this 
is  not  directly  asserted.  A  preceding  chapter  shows  that 
there  was  some  confusion  at  this  time  between  the  Apostle 
and  the  Evangelist  Philip.  (Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  31,  2,  5.) 
Comp.  Renan,  Hist,,  ii.  151  n. 


AN   EARLY   INVESTIGATOR  n 

speaks  first  of  Mark,  repeating  what  had  been 
told  him  on  this  subject  by  the  Presbyter  John. 
"  This,  too,"  writes  Papias,  "  the  Presbyter  said  : 
Mark,  acting  as  interpreter  of  Peter,  wrote  down 
carefully  whatever  he  remembered  of  the  say- 
ings or  doings  of  Christ,  yet  not  with  any  sys- 
tem.1 For  he  had  never  heard  the  Lord  himself, 
nor  was  he  even  his  follower,  but  became  later, 
as  I  have  said,  a  follower  of  Peter;  and  as 
Peter  was  in  the  habit  of  discoursing  as  occasion 
arose  with  no  view  to  orderly  arrangement  2  of 
the  Lord's  words,  Mark  cannot  well  be  blamed 
for  simply  recording  what  things  he  remem- 
bered, however  few.  For  his  one  care  was,  not 
to  omit  anything  he  had  heard,  and  to  falsify 
nothing."3 

Once  more  we  seem  to  stand  on  the  very 


8  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  39,  15.  We  have  here  the  source 
of  the  popular  notion  that  Mark,  in  writing  his  Gospel,  acted 
as  Peter's  "  amanuensis."  Papias  is  the  first  to  give  the 
tradition,  but  it  is  repeated  by  various  early  writers,  with 
many  modifications.  According  to  one  account  Mark  wrote 
during  Peter's  lifetime  and  at  his  dictation;  according  to 
another  after  Peter's  death  ;  according  to  one  Peter  was 
wholly  indifferent  in  the  matter  ;  according  to  another  he 
learned  through  supernatural  means  what  Mark  had  done, 
and  was  well  pleased,  and  gave  the  work  his  official  sanction. 
(Irenaeus,  iii.  i,  i  ;  Tertullian,  Adv.  Marc.  iv.  5;  Euseb.,  Hist. 
Ecc.,  ii.  15;  vi.  14,  6,  7  ;  vi.  25,  5.) 


12  PAPIAS 

threshold  of  Christian  literature,  watching  its 
earliest  stages  of  growth.  Papias  is  evidently 
defending  Mark  against  certain  charges.1  The 
critics  of  the  day  find  his  narrative  ill  arranged 
and  fragmentary.  But  why  should  Mark  be 
blamed  for  this  ?  asks  Papias ;  Peter  followed 
no  methodical  plan,  why  then  should  Mark,  who 
was  simply  reporting  from  memory  the  occa- 
sional discourses  of  the  Apostle?  Mark  was 
careful  and  honest ;  what  more  could  be  asked  ? 
But  what  is  it  that  Papias  is  describing?  we 
cannot  help  asking  ourselves.  The  Gospel  of 
Mark,  as  we  have  it  to-day,  certainly  does  not 
read  like  a  collection  of  discourses  by  Peter; 
nor  is  it  noticeably  lacking  in  "  orderly  arrange- 
ment." On  the  contrary,  it  gives  all  the  method 
or  system  that  we  have  in  these  early  records, 
and,  though  shorter  than  the  other  narratives,  is 
no  less  chronological  or  consecutive  than  they. 
Indeed,  it  has  become  the  fashion  among  the 
latest  biblical  critics  to  regard  Mark  as  afford- 
ing on  the  whole,  in  its  very  simplicity  and 
clearness,  the  most  intelligible  account  of  the 
Lord's  ministry  that  has  come  down  to  us.  No 
doubt  if  we  were  bound  to  prove,  or  chose 
to  assume  beforehand,  that  Papias  had  Mark's 

1  It  is  not  quite  clear  whether  Papias  is  speaking  for  him- 
self here,  or  quoting  his  Presbyter. 


AN   EARLY   INVESTIGATOR  13 

Gospel  in  its  present  form  before  him,  it  would 
be  possible,  by  a  little  straining  of  language,  to 
make  this  appear.  As  we  feel  no  such  neces- 
sity, however,  but  are  only  trying  to  put  our- 
selves in  our  author's  place,  let  us  pause  and 
look  a  little  farther  into  the  matter.  Can  it 
be  that  the  document  of  which  Papias  speaks, 
though  already  bearing  the  name  of  Mark,  is 
simply  the  first  rude  collection  out  of  which 
in  due  time  the  completed  Gospel  is  to  grow  ? 
Nothing  is  said  of  a  Gospel,  it  must  be  noticed. 
It  is  not  even  an  arrangement.  It  is  a  memo- 
riter  report  of  fragmentary  conversations  or  ad- 
dresses of  the  Apostle  Peter.  As  an  account 
of  such  a  primitive  document  Papias' s  descrip- 
tion would  be  perfect,  and  we  should  then  have 
the  supreme  satisfaction  of  catching  a  furtive 
glimpse  of  the  hidden  processes  of  Scripture 
composition.  This  would  be  one  of  the  layers 
for  which  we  are  searching.1  It  is  not  worth 

1  Compare  Schleiermacher's  Werke,  ii.  361-393.  An  early 
work  called  the  K-fipvypa  Tlerpov,  or  Preaching  of  Peter,  is 
quoted  by  second  century  writers  as  of  equal  authority  with 
the  canonical  Scriptures,  and  is  held  by  some  critics  to  have 
been  in  Papias's  hands.  (Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  i.  29 ;  vi.  5, 6, 1 5.) 
Eusebius,  in  the  fourth  century,  finds  it  still  in  use,  but  ranks 
it  with  the  Second  Epistle  of  Peter  as  of  doubtful  genuine- 
ness. (Hist.  Etc.,  iii.  3,  2.)  See  Schwegler,  Nachap.  Zeit.,  i. 
54,  459;  ii.  30;  Weiffenbach,  Die  Papias-Fragmente,  46,  107. 


14  PAPIAS 

our  while  to  pass  any  hasty  judgment  on  this 
point ;  for  the  extract  which  Eusebius  gives  is 
short  and  enigmatic  at  best,  and  it  is  important 
for  us  to  lose  no  early  confirmation  of  our  New 
Testament  Scriptures.  At  the  same  time,  it  is 
more  important  still  for  us  to  get  at  the  true 
spirit  of  these  creative  hours,  and  see  things 
as  they  really  were.  In  any  other  case,  where 
an  ordinary  historic  question  was  at  issue,  we 
should  certainly  suspend  our  judgment  on  such 
evidence  till  further  testimony  was  found.  Let 
us  do  so  now. 

As  it  happens,  the  testimony  accumulates  at 
once.  Papias,  as  I  have  said,  has  information 
to  give  also  regarding  the  Gospel  of  Matthew, 
which,  though  much  less  detailed  than  his  ac- 
count of  Mark,  is  none  the  less  interesting.  We 
must  remember  that  these  are  the  earliest  tra- 
ditions known  to  history  concerning  the  origin 
of  our  Gospels,  and  the  first  allusions  to  either 
Matthew  or  Mark  as  a  Gospel  writer ;  they  are 
therefore  of  importance  far  beyond  their  actual 
length.  "Matthew,"  says  Papias,  "transcribed 
the  Sayings  J  in  the  Hebrew  dialect,  and  each 
one  interpreted2  them  as  best  he  could." 

This  is  all ;  but  how  curious  a  situation  this 
brief  passage  suggests.  Again  Papias  says  no- 

1  See  Note  B.  a  Qr  perhaps  "  translated." 


AN   EARLY   INVESTIGATOR  15 

thing  of  a  Gospel.  The  Gospel  of  Matthew,  as 
we  know  it,  is  by  no  means  a  mere  collection  of 
the  Lord's  Sayings,  although  possibly  based  on 
such  collections ; l  but  is  a  methodical  composi- 
tion, fashioned  on  a  more  artistic  scheme  than 
either  Mark  or  Luke.  It  is  not  written  in  He- 
brew ;  it  is  written  in  Greek.  It  cannot  even  be 
considered  a  translation  from  a  Hebrew  original, 
as  it  shows  none  of  the  usual  characteristics  of 
a  translation,  and  makes  its  Old  Testament  cita- 
tions as  a  rule  from  the  Greek  rather  than  the 
Hebrew  versions.2  In  a  word,  the  description 
before  us  bears  even  less  resemblance  to  our 
Matthew  than  the  previous  description  to  our 
Mark.  No  doubt  if  we  were  obliged  to  assume 
that  the  Gospel  of  Matthew  existed  in  its  pre- 
sent form  in  the  time  of  Papias,  we  might  ex- 
plain his  silence  by  saying  that  he  did  not  think 
it  worth  while  to  mention  a  fact  so  familiar.  As 
we  are  under  no  such  obligation,  however,  it  is 
far  more  to  the  purpose  to  take  the  words  in 
their  obvious  meaning  and  let  them  tell  their 
own  story. 

1  Matt.  v.  i-vii.  29 ;  xiii.  1-53 ;  xviii.  i-xix.  2  •  xxiv. ;  xxv. 

2  This  is  a  nice  point  to  decide,  and  one  on  which  the 
verdict  of  trained  philologists  is  alone  of  value ;  but  critics 
of  all  the  schools  seem  to  be  singularly  in  accord  in  pro- 
nouncing our  Greek  Matthew,  whenever  written,  an  original 
work  rather  than  a  translation.     For  the  authorities  on  this 
point,  see  Holtzmann,  Einleit.  in  das  N.  Test.,  376-378. 


16  PAPIAS 

We  seem  to  be  standing  midway  between 
a  primitive  collection  of  the  Lord's  Sayings, 
in  their  original  tongue,  for  use  in  Hebrew 
churches,  and  the  Greek  Gospel  of  Matthew 
composed  for  Greek  -  speaking  communities. 
Whether  Papias1  had  ever  seen  the  Hebrew 
document  of  which  he  speaks  does  not  appear. 
Possibly  he  knew  of  it  only  by  hearsay,  or  at 
best  only  in  the  form  of  various  independent 
translations,  such  as  he  here  seems  to  speak 
of,  for  the  service  of  non-Jewish  congregations. 
Had  there  been  an  authorized  translation,  such 
varieties  would  certainly  not  have  been  in 
vogue ;  but  our  author's  expression,  "  each  one 
interpreted  as  best  he  could,"  puts  the  primi- 
tive condition  of  things  very  naturally  before 
us.  It  opens  the  way  for  countless  surmises. 
Were  there,  then,  a  Hebrew  and  a  Greek  Mat- 
thew in  use  at  the  same  time  in  different  Chris- 
tian churches,  quite  independent  of  each  other, 
and  both  original  documents  ?  And  if  so,  what 
became  of  the  Hebrew  Gospel  ?  Or  was  the 
primitive  Hebrew  primer  to  be  absorbed  finally 
into  an  elaborated  Gospel,  losing  its  original 
identity,  but  leaving  behind  the  tradition  of  its 
source  ? 

But  this  is  sheer  conjecture,  as  neither  Papias, 

1  Or  John  the  Presbyter,  as  the  case  may  be. 


AN   EARLY    INVESTIGATOR  17 

nor  Eusebius  his  historian,  gives  us  the  infor- 
mation needed  to  connect  these  earlier  records 
positively  with  the  later  Gospels  with  which  we 
are  familiar.  We  must  be  content  with  what 
we  have,  not  pretending  to  certainty  where 
there  is  none.  All  we  can  say  with  confidence 
is  that  at  the  time  of  which  we  are  speaking, 
so  far  as  Papias  informs  us,  the  only  writings 
directly  ascribed  to  Matthew  are  certain  dis- 
courses of  Jesus  in  the  Hebrew  tongue ;  the 
only  ones  ascribed  to  Mark  are  certain  informal 
discourses  of  Peter  concerning  the  life  of  Jesus ; 
while  Luke  and  John  are  not  mentioned  at 
all. 

I  have  no  desire  whatever  to  force  these  facts 
into  undue  prominence,  or  to  base  exaggerated 
conclusions  upon  them.  It  must  not  be  forgot- 
ten, in  the  case  of  Papias,  that  the  description 
of  him  in  Eusebius  is  brief  at  best,  and  that  our 
knowledge  of  his  writings  from  other  sources 
is  of  the  scantiest  kind.1  Three  or  four  pages 
out  of  five  books  might  not  seem  enough  to 
warrant  even  the  guarded  inferences  ventured 
upon  above,  as  Papias  may  have  made  allusions 
elsewhere  to  Matthew  or  Mark  which  Euse- 
bius overlooked  or  thought  unimportant.  Papias 

1  See  Routh's  Reliquia  Sacra,  i.  1-16.  Compare  Harnack, 
Altchristliche  Literatur>  i.  65. 


i8  PAPIAS 

does  not  mention  Paul's  Epistles,  which  he 
must  have  known  something  about ; l  why  then, 
it  will  be  asked,  deduce  more  from  his  silence 
about  the  Gospels  than  from  his  silence  about 
Paul?  All  this  must  be  taken  into  account, 
and  it  would  be  foolish  to  disparage  it.  At  the 
same  time  it  must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Eu- 
sebius,  writing  at  a  time  when  the  Christian 
annals  have  assumed  suddenly  a  world-wide  im- 
portance, makes  it  a  point  to  gather  from  earlier 
writers  all  the  testimony  he  can  on  this  very 
point  of  the  composition  and  genuineness  of 
the  Christian  Scriptures.  He  devotes  various 
chapters  to  this  all  -  important  question.2  He 
also  says  quite  explicitly,  as  he  takes  up  the 

1  The  fact  that  Papias  makes  no  mention  of  the  Epistles 
of  Paul,  which  were  written  long  before  his  time,  has  led  to 
many  curious  conjectures.    Perhaps  he  found  no  material  in 
such  didactic  writings  available  for  his  undidactic  purposes. 
Perhaps  he  shared  in  the  suspicions  of  Paul  so  common  in 
the  early  church,  or  thought  the  Epistles  too  anti-Jewish  in 
their  tone.     One  critic  imagines  that  the  allusion  to  those 
who  "  have  much  to  say "  (p.  5)  is  a  hit  at  the  loquacious 
Paulites.   (Hilgenfeld,  EinL,  57.)    Possibly  the  simple  reason 
may  be  that  Paul's  Epistles,  though  of  course  existing  at 
that  time,  had  a  limited  circulation,  were  not  collected,  and 
were  in  vogue  only  in  special  communities.     Zahn,  however, 
thinks  there  is  evidence  of  a  collection  of  the  Epistles  during 
the  first  century.    (Kanon-Gesch.,  i.  811,  etc.) 

2  Euseb.,  Hist.Ecc.,  ii.  15;  iii.  24,  25;  iv.  26 ;  v.  8 ;  vi.  25. 


AN   EARLY   INVESTIGATOR  19 

apostolic  writings  :  "  As  my  history  progresses, 
I  shall  take  pains  to  show  what  disputed  books 
have  been  used  from  time  to  time  by  ecclesias- 
tical writers,  and  what  opinions  they  have  ex- 
pressed either  upon  the  canonical  and  genuine 
Scriptures,  or  upon  those  not  so  regarded."  l 

It  seems  altogether  unlikely,  therefore,  that 
if  Papias  had  made  any  more  specific  statements 
about  Matthew  and  Mark,  or  had  mentioned 
the  other  two  Evangelists  at  all,  Eusebius  would 
have  overlooked  such  important  testimony,  or 
failed  to  emphasize  it.  However  this  may  be, 
there  is  no  question  that  the  language  of  Papias, 
on  its  face,  applies  far  better  to  floating  Gospel 
traditions  in  early  process  of  formation,  than 
to  authenticated  records,  already  sifted  and 
edited.  This  sifting  process  is  the  very  work 
in  which  our  bishop  is  engaged ;  and  there  is 
no  good  reason  why  we  should  deny  ourselves 
this  picturesque  glimpse  of  himself  which  he 
gives  us.  The  value  of  an  ancient  story  for 
Papias  is  not  that  it  is  contained  in  official 
records,  but  that  it  comes  to  him  from  the  lips 
of  venerable  men.  Whatever  documents  he 
has  before  him,  he  takes  the  liberty  to  prefer 
his  oral  reminiscences  to  them  all.  We  may 

1  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  3,  3.     Compare  Holtzmann,  Einleitung 
in  das  N.  Test.,  468. 


20  PAPIAS 

wish  that  he  told  us  more,  or  had  been  quoted 
more  fully ;  but,  meantime,  it  is  certainly  no  loss 
to  stand  for  a  moment  where  this  constructive 
process  is  going  on,  and  to  catch  this  passing 
view  of  the  literary  methods  of  the  time.1 

i  Note  F. 


CHAPTER  II 

PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIAN    LITERATURE 

IF  our  brief  account  of  Papias  seems  too 
slight  a  basis  for  any  serious  theory  of  the 
formation  of  the  Christian  Scriptures,  let  us 
see  how  far  this  first  impression  is  borne  out  by 
other  writings  of  the  same  period.  Although 
Papias  was  the  first  to  undertake  anything 
like  Scripture  research,  yet  other  authors  there 
were  who  will  help  us  in  picturing  to  ourselves 
these  early  processes  of  growth.  In  any  case, 
an  examination  of  their  works  is  sure  to  throw 
some  light  upon  our  problem,  and  cannot  be 
wholly  out  of  place  even  in  so  unprofessional  a 
treatise  as  the  present  volume. 

Let  us  turn  for  a  moment  to  the  church  at 
Rome.  One  of  the  earliest  leaders  of  that 
church  was  a  certain  Clement,  who  was  for  a 
long  time  considered  the  same  as  the  Clement 
mentioned  by  Paul  in  his  Epistle  to  the  Philip- 
pians,1  but  of  whom  we  really  know  nothing 
beside  the  writings  he  has  left.  In  later  chron- 

1  Phil.  iv.  3 ;  Iren.,  ffcer.,  iii.  3,  3. 


22  PAPIAS 

icles,  when  ecclesiastical  organizations  became 
more  complete,  he  figured  as  third  or  fourth  in 
the  list  of  bishops  of  Rome,1  and  was,  in  any 
case,  a  man  of  marked  influence,  whose  name 
was  honorably  remembered,  and  whose  personal 
authority  seems  to  have  been  felt  in  the  sur- 
rounding churches.  An  anonymous  Epistle 
from  "  the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Rome  to 
the  Church  of  God  which  is  at  Corinth "  has 
come  down  to  us,  which  was  ascribed  to  Clement 
from  very  early  times,  and  may  with  good  rea- 
son be  considered  genuine.2  If  so,  it  must  have 
been  written  about  A.  D.  95,  and  is,  therefore, 
the  first  document  that  has  survived  from  the 
times  immediately  following  the  apostolic  age.3 
Violent  strife  had  arisen  at  Corinth,  it  seems,  in 
the  course  of  which  certain  priests  had  been 
forcibly  ejected  from  office  by  an  opposing  fac- 
tion in  the  church.4  Whether  this  was  a  later 
outbreak  there  of  the  same  sort  of  jealousies 

1  Iren.  iii.  3,  3 ;  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.t  iii.  4,  9 ;    Harnack, 
Chron.,  i.  191. 

2  Note  G. 

8  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  15;  iii.  34.  Harnack,  who  has 
subjected  these  dates  to  rigid  inspection,  places  Clement's 
bishopric  at  88-97,  and  the  Epistle  at  93-95  or  possibly  97. 
(Chron.,  i.  201,  251.)  Passages  in  the  Epistle  like  vi.  I  point 
to  a  date  as  far  as  possible  from  the  apostolic  period. 

*  i  Clement,  i.  i ;  xliv.  3-6 ;  iii.  3. 


PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIAN   LITERATURE    23 

which  Paul  had  himself  had  occasion  to  rep- 
rimand so  sharply,1  or  some  uprising  of  the 
laity  against  the  growing  claims  of  the  clergy,2 
or  simply  a  revolt  of  the  younger  and  more 
heady  members  of  the  community  against  their 
elders,  we  can  only  guess,  but  in  any  case  it 
was  a  serious  affair,  which  revealed  plainly  the 
loose  organization  of  Christian  communities  at 
that  formative  epoch.  It  should  be  noted  that 
the  Roman  church  addresses  that  at  Corinth 
in  this  instance,  not  at  all  as  a  superior,  but 
merely  as  a  counselor,  with  such  authority  only 
as  was  given  it  by  the  personal  dignity  of  its 
bishop.3  Clement  insists,  indeed,  upon  submis- 
sion to  the  elders,4  but  not  in  the  tone  of  the 
later  church,  rather  in  fatherly  exhortation,  giv- 
ing the  best  of  advice  and  recognizing  frankly 
the  ultimate  authority  of  the  community.6  "  It 

1  I  Cor.  xii. ;  xiv. 

2  i  Clem.  xl.  5.     Comp.  J.  Reville,  Orig.  de  Vtipiscopat, 
404;  Renan,  Hist.,  v.  317. 

8  i.  i.  It  is  not  quite  clear  whether  the  questions  here 
alluded  to  had  been  referred  by  the  Corinthians  to  the 
Roman  church,  or  merely  discussed  among  themselves.  In 
any  case  Clement  simply  offers  his  advice,  (vii.  i.) 

*  Ivii.  i. 

5  xliv.  3.  The  Epistle  shows  a  primitive  condition  of 
things  in  the  Corinthian  church,  where  bishops  and  deacons 
appear  together  as  the  highest  functionaries  (xlii.  4),  yet 
where  there  is  evidently  no  single-headed  episcopate  (xliv. 


24  PAPIAS 

is  a  shame,  my  beloved,"  he  writes,  "an  ex- 
ceeding shame,  unworthy  the  Christian  call- 
ing, this  report  that  the  most  steadfast  and 
ancient  church  of  Corinth  has  been  led,  by  two 
or  three  men,  into  revolt  against  its  elders." 
"  Who  is  high-minded  among  you,  who  is  com- 
passionate, who  abounding  in  love  ?  Let  him 
say ;  if  this  sedition,  this  strife,  these  schisms 
be  on  my  account,  I  will  depart,  I  will  do  what- 
soever is  commanded  me  by  the  people :  only 
let  the  flock  of  Christ,  with  the  elders  that  are 
over  it,  be  at  peace." l 

Questioning  this  Epistle  for  its  acquaintance 
with  the  New  Testament,  we  find  it  abounding 
in  Scripture  quotations  from  beginning  to  end. 
Its  precepts,  exhortations,  examples,  are  all  in 
the  language  of  Holy  Writ,  and  enforced  as  the 
teachings  of  the  divine  spirit.  To  our  surprise, 
however,  they  are  from  the  Old  Testament  ex- 
clusively. "  Let  us  take  Enoch  for  our  exam- 
ple; "  "  Noah,  being  proved  to  be  faithful,  did  by 
his  ministry  preach  regeneration  to  the  world;" 
"  Abraham,  called  the  friend,  was  found  f aith- 

6),  and  where  the  Presbyters  are  an  august  body  in  highest 
authority  (i.  3 ;  xxi.  6 ;  liv.  2  ;  Ivii.  l),  constituting  apparently 
the  circle  from  which  the  governing  officials  are  drawn  (xliv. 
i,  2,  5).  Comp.  J.  Reville,  Orig.  de  Vjfrpiscopat,  413,  418; 
Weizsacker,  ii.  327. 
1  i  Clem,  xlvii.  6;  liv.  i,  2. 


PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIAN    LITERATURE    25 

ful  in  that  he  was  obedient  to  the  words  of 
God ;  "  "  Let  us  be  followers  of  those  who  went 
about  in  goatskins  and  sheepskins,  teaching 
the  coming  of  Christ ;  we  mean  Elijah  and 
Elisha  and  Ezekiel  the  prophets."  1  Indeed,  as 
we  read  these  pages  we  become  aware  that  the 
Old  Testament  is  the  only  book  which  our  au- 
thor accepts,  or  is  accustomed  to  think  of,  as 
"  Scripture."  Once  or  twice,  indeed,  Christ  is 
introduced  as  speaking,  but  singularly  enough 
it  is  always  Old  Testament  language  that  he 
uses.  It  is  through  the  Psalms  or  Pentateuch 
that  Christ  is  regarded  as  addressing  his  church. 
"  All  these  things  faith  in  Christ  doth  confirm ; 
for  he  himself,  through  the  Holy  Spirit,  doth 
thus  invite  us :  Come,  ye  children,  hearken 
unto  me,  I  will  teach  you  the  fear  of  the  Lord." 
"Again,  he  himself  (Christ)  saith :  <I  am  a 
worm  and  no  man,  a  reproach  of  men  and  de- 
spised of  the  people.'  "  2  Some  of  these  pas- 
sages are  from  Scriptures  quite  unknown  to 
us,3  sometimes  the  original  text  is  plainly  dif- 
ferent from  either  our  Hebrew  or  our  Greek 
version  of  the  Old  Testament ;  but  for  the 
most  part  they  are  familiar  passages  quoted 

1  i  Clem.  ix.  3,  4 ;  x.  I ;  xvii.  I. 

2  xxii.   i;    Psalms  xxxiv.   n ;    xvi.   15;    Psalms   xxii.  6; 
Comp.  Heb.  xi.  26. 

8  xlvi.  2. 


26  PAPIAS 

somewhat  loosely,  as  was   the  fashion  of  the 
day. 

It  requires  no  little  effort  to  adjust  ourselves 
to  this  novel  position.  I  do  not  mean  to  imply 
that  Clement  shows  no  familiarity  whatever 
with  Christian  writings,  for  there  are  several 
passages  which  suggest  more  or  less  vividly  our 
Gospels  or  Epistles.  But  in  no  case  are  these 
introduced  as  "  Scripture  "  passages.  That 
term,  and  the  various  designations  associated 
with  it,  is  reserved  exclusively,  as  has  been 
said,  for  the  Jewish  Scriptures.  These  alone 
are  the  "  Holy  Scriptures."  l  The  phrases 
"The  Lord  saith,"  "The  Holy  Spirit  saith," 
"He  saith,"  "It  is  written,"  "Wisdom  saith," 
"The  elect  David  saith,"  are  constantly  recur- 
ring, but  always  as  referring  to  Prophets,  Law,  or 
Psalms.2  On  two  occasions  we  find  the  expres- 
sion, "  Remember  the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus,"  3 
showing  that  the  Sayings  of  the  Master  were 
held  in  high  authority  among  the  churches,  and 
were  already  in  vogue  side  by  side  with  the  more 
ancient  writings,  but  not  yet  admitted  to  their 
sacred  company.  They  are  not  "  Scriptures," 
nor  do  they  come  so  readily  to  the  disciple's 

1  i  Clem.  liii.  i,  2 ;  xliii.  I. 

2  iv.  i ;  xiii.  i ;  xxx.  4 ;  xxiii.  3  ;  lii.  2  ;  Ivii.  3. 
8  xiii.  i ;  xlvi.  7. 


PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIAN    LITERATURE    27 

lips  or  the  writer's  pen.  Out  of  120  possible 
Scripture  citations,  only  12  can  by  any  ingenuity 
be  referred  to  our  New  Testament.1 

Here  is  one  passage,  for  instance,  which  sug- 
gests the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  not  quoted 
as  such,  indeed,  nor  exactly  in  the  language  of 
our  present  text,  yet  unmistakably  related  to 
that  writing :  "  Through  him  the  Lord  2  would 
have  us  taste  the  immortal  knowledge;  who, 
being  the  brightness  of  his  majesty,  is  so  much 
greater  than  the  angels  as  he  hath  inherited  a 
more  excellent  name."  3  Indeed,  there  is  more 
tinge  of  the  Hebrews  in  this  Epistle  of  Clement 
than  of  any  other  New  Testament  writing ;  as 
though  the  writer  were  especially  fond  of  that 
particular  letter,  or  especially  familiar  with  it ; 
or  as  though  perhaps  the  two  Epistles  were 
written  at  about  the  same  time,  when  this 
special  phraseology  was  current.  As  Clement 
introduces  this  passage  in  his  own  language, 
giving  no  credit  to  an  outside  source,  and  as 
neither  writer  betrays  any  knowledge  of  the 
other,  it  is  not  quite  certain  which  of  the  two  is 
the  borrower,  if  either,  and  which  the  lender.4 

1  I  have  followed  here  Lightfoot's  references.     (Apos. 
Fathers,  1893.) 

2  6  5eo"7r<$T77s.  8  I  Clem,  xxxvi.  2. 

*  xxxvi.  3-5 ;  xliii.  i.  In  most  of  these  cases  the  only 
point  of  affinity  between  the  two  Epistles  is  that  the  two 


28  PAPIAS 

Our  author  knows  the  Apostle  Paul  and  his 
writings,  and  gives  us  pieces  of  information 
concerning  him  quite  startling  to  those  who 
know  Paul  only  from  the  pages  of  the  New  Tes- 
tament. "  So,  having  taught  the  whole  world 
righteousness,  and  journeying  to  the  utmost 
bounds  of  the  west,  when  he  had  borne  his 
testimony l  before  the  rulers,  he  departed  from 
the  world  and  went  unto  the  holy  place."  2  But 
although  Clement  is  addressing  the  Corinthians, 
he  alludes  to  Paul's  Epistles  to  that  church  but 
once  by  name,3  leaving  us  in  other  cases  to 
conj  ecture  his  acquaintance  with  that  or  other 
Epistles  only  by  vague  resemblances.  Here  is 
perhaps  the  most  direct  quotation,  though  even 
in  this  case  not  given  as  a  quotation  :  "  Let  us 
take  our  body ;  the  head  without  the  feet  is  no- 
thing, so  the  feet  without  the  head  are  nothing, 
but  the  smallest  members  of  our  body  are  neces- 
sary and  useful  to  the  whole  body."4 

authors  use  the  same  passages  from  the  Old  Testament, 
and  in  the  same  way.  Comp.  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  38; 
Renan,  Hist.,  v.  334. 

1  Or  "  having  suffered  martyrdom." 

2  i  Clem.  v.  7.    See  Holtzmann,  Einleitung  in  das  N.  Test., 
280. 

8  xlvii.  1-3.  Clement  says  here,  "  Take  up  the  epistle  of 
the  blessed  Paul  the  Apostle,"  as  though  there  were  but 
one  Epistle  to  the  Corinthians. 

*  xxxvii.  5.    Comp.  i  Cor.  xii. 


PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIAN   LITERATURE    29 

Still  more  striking  are  Clement's  references 
to  the  words  of  Jesus  himself,  which  might  be 
supposed  to  afford  as  many  practical  precepts 
as  those  of  Moses  or  David.  They  are  not 
given  as  "  Scripture,"  yet  are  introduced  as  if 
familiar  to  his  readers,  whether  from  oral  repe- 
tition, or  from  chance  collections  of  the  Master's 
precepts  already  current.  Here  is  the  most  defi- 
nite and  unmistakable :  "  Above  all  remember- 
ing the  words  of  the  Lord  Jesus  which  he  spake 
teaching  clemency  and  long-suffering.  For  thus 
he  said:  Be  ye  merciful,  that  ye  may  obtain 
mercy,  forgive  that  it  may  be  forgiven  unto 
you,  as  ye  do  so  shall  it  be  done  unto  you,  as  ye 
give  so  shall  it  be  given  unto  you,  as  ye  judge 
so  shall  ye  be  judged,  as  ye  are  kind  so  shall 
kindness  be  shown  unto  you,  with  what  measure 
ye  mete  with  the  same  shall  it  be  measured  unto 
you." 1  How  strangely  familiar  yet  unfamiliar 
this  sounds.  One  is  quite  bewildered  by  it; 
turning  first  to  Matthew  v.  7,  then  to  vi.  12-15, 
but  finding  it  necessary  to  piece  out  the  extract 
with  vii.  2,  or  Luke  vi.  36-38,  and  even  then 
leaving  one  precept  quite  unaccounted  for,  un- 
less it  be  a  faint  reminiscence  of  i  Cor.  xiii.  4. 
Quite  the  same  is  the  effect  of  the  only  other 
reference  to  the  words  of  Jesus  which  this  Epis- 
1  i  Clem.  xiii.  i,  2. 


30  PAPIAS 

tie  contains  :  "  Remember  the  words  of  our  Lord 
Jesus  :  Woe  to  that  man ;  it  were  good  for  him 
that  he  had  not  been  born,  rather  than  to  offend 
one  of  my  elect ;  it  were  better  for  him  that  a 
millstone  be  hanged  about  him  and  he  be  cast 
into  the  sea,  than  that  he  should  pervert  one  of 
my  elect." l  Here  again  we  must  turn  to  Mat- 
thew xviii.  6,  7 ;  xxvi.  24  ;  Mark  xiv.  21  ;  ix.  42  ; 
Luke  xvii.  i,  2;  xxii.  22,  to  find  all  the  frag- 
ments here  put  together,  and  we  ask  ourselves 
where  Clement  could  have  discovered  the  pas- 
sage. Is  he  quoting  from  memory,  as  would  be 
natural  enough,  and  as  is  apparently  the  case 
with  some  of  his  Old  Testament  citations  ; 2  or 
from  oral  traditions  simply;  or  has  he  before 
him  some  collection  of  the  Lord's  Sayings 
which  has  been  long  ago  forgotten?  One  of 
these  guesses  is  as  good  as  the  other ;  the  only 
thing  of  which  we  are  sure  being  that  he  is  not 
quoting  from  either  of  our  four  Gospels.  Nor 
does  it  seem  altogether  natural  that  this  leader 
of  the  churches  should  have  had  those  Gospels 
in  full  form  before  him,  without  once  appealing 
to  them  to  reinforce  his  own  authority.  What- 
ever our  judgment  on  this  point,  it  is  worth  our 
while  to  remember  this  attitude  of  the  early 

1  i  Clem.  xlvi.  7,  8. 

2  viii.  2,  3;  xiii.  i;  xv.  2-7;  xxxiv.  3. 


PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIAN   LITERATURE    31 

church  towards  its  written  Scriptures.  One 
Bible  was  enough  for  the  church  of  this  period, 
it  would  seem.  They  had  Moses  and  the  Pro- 
phets ;  what  need  of  more  ?  Those  ancient 
books  which  had  come  down  from  earliest  time, 
through  which  Christ  himself  had  spoken  to 
patriarchs  and  prophets,  and  which  contained, 
for  those  who  understood,  the  promise  and 
prophecy  of  the  Messiah's  coming,  possessed  a 
sanctity  to  which  nothing  else  at  first  could 
aspire.  Thus  far,  at  least,  the  churches  could 
find  a  place  for  no  other  Scripture.1 

Turning  once  more  to  the  East ;  in  the  ninth  2 
year  of  the  reign  of  Trajan,  that  emperor,  so 
says  an  ancient  chronicle,  visited  the  city  of 
Antioch  on  his  way  to  Parthia,  and  while  there 
tried  to  force  the  Christians  to  sacrifice  to  the 
Roman  gods.  Their  bishop,  Ignatius  by  name, 
having  scorned  this  summons,  and  urged  others 
to  do  the  same,  was  brought  before  the  emperor 
and  boldly  declared  :  "  Thou  art  in  error  when 
thou  callest  the  evil  spirits  of  the  heathen  gods. 
For  there  is  but  one  God,  who  made  heaven 
and  earth,  .  .  .  and  one  Jesus  Christ,  his  only 
begotten  son;  whose  kingdom  may  I  enjoy." 
"Whereupon/*  so  says  our  chronicle,  "Trajan 
pronounced  this  sentence  against  him ;  Foras- 
much as  Ignatius  has  confessed  that  he  carries 

i  See  Note  H.  2  Or,  nineteenth.    ' 


32  PAPIAS 

about  within  himself  Him  that  was  crucified, 
we  command  that  he  be  carried  bound  with  sol- 
diers to  great  Rome,  there  to  be  thrown  to  the 
beasts  for  the  entertainment  of  the  people."1 
Ignatius  was  then  carried  to  Rome,  passing 
through  Asia  Minor  on  the  way,  and  scattering 
letters  as  he  went  among  the  churches  of  the 
East.  About  fifteen  epistles,  claiming  to  have 
come  from  this  source,  have  survived,  together 
with  a  detailed  account  of  his  martyrdom  in 
Rome. 

The  whole  narrative  has  a  somewhat  mythi- 
cal air,  and  as  it  accords  poorly  with  the  his- 
torical facts  of  Trajan's  reign,  and  as,  moreover, 
no  mention  of  our  chronicle  can  be  found  till 
two  or  three  centuries  later,  we  have  every  rea- 
son to  question  its  authenticity.2  The  letters 
themselves,  however,  have  the  value  of  ancient 
documents,  by  whomsoever  written ;  and  seven 
of  them  3  have  internal  evidence  in  their  favor, 
and  belong  certainly  to  the  first  half  of  the 
century.4 

1  Acts  of  Martyrdom  of  Ignatius,  ch.  ii. 

2  Eusebius,  who  gives  a  brief  account  of  Ignatius's  martyr- 
dom, shows  no  knowledge  of  this  document.     (Hist.  Ecc., 
iii.  36.)     See,  also,  Lightfoot,  Apos.  Fathers,  ii.  363-391,  448, 
480. 

8  To  the  Ephesians,  Magnesians,  Trallians,  Romans,  Phila- 
delphians,  Smyrnaeans,  Polycarp. 
*  Note  I. 


PRIMITIVE   CHRISTIAN   LITERATURE    33 

Looking  at  these  seven  Epistles,  we  find  a 
writer  who  was  evidently  less  familiar  with  the 
Scriptures,  or  cared  less  for  their  authority,  than 
Clement,  as  he  makes  slight  allusion  to  either 
Old  Testament  or  New,  never  citing  either  by 
name,  and  leaving  us  to  guess  his  acquaintance 
with  them  by  similarities  of  expression.  This 
in  itself  has  no  special  significance,  as  quota- 
tions in  the  style  of  to-day  are  not  to  be  looked 
for  in  the  writings  of  that  period,  and  if  these 
letters  were  really  written  on  his  last  journey  to 
Rome,  exact  citations  could  not  be  expected  in 
any  case.  Nor  does  the  writer  fail  to  declare 
again  and  again  the  authority  of  the  doctrines 
and  teachings  of  Jesus  Christ.1  At  the  same 
time,  the  absence  of  all  New  Testament  color- 
ing on  the  part  of  a  bishop  addressing  neighbor 
communities  is  certainly  noteworthy,  and  is 
now  and  then  very  pointed.  In  speaking  of  his 
fellow  Christians  of  Antioch,  for  instance,  he 
applies  to  himself  the  very  expression  used 
by  Paul,  —  "  being  the  least  among  them,  as 
one  born  out  of  due  time  ;  "  2  yet  without  the 
slightest  allusion  to  Paul,  but  as  though  the 
language  were  his  own.  Or  again,  take  these 
passages  which  may  be  selected  out  of  all  the 

1  Eph.  vi.  2 ;  xv.  2 ;  Magnes.  xiii.  I. 

2  Comp.  i  Cor.  xv.  8 ;  Ignat.  to  Romans,  ix.  2. 


34  PAPIAS 

Epistles  as  the  most  exact  references  to  the 
New  Testament.  In  neither  case  are  they 
given  as  quotations,  nor  is  any  Gospel  writer 
mentioned.1 

In  his  Epistle  to  the  Ephesians  he  says  :  "  If 
the  prayer  of  one  and  another  hath  such  power, 
how  much  more  that  of  the  bishop  and  the 
whole  church."  This  shows  pretty  clearly  that 
the  writer  has  some  familiar  saying  in  mind, 
and  if  it  be  any  passage  from  our  Scriptures  we 
might  guess  that  it  was  "  If  two  of  you  shall 
agree  on  earth  as  touching  any  thing  that  they 
shall  ask,  it  shall  be  done  for  them  of  my  Father 
which  is  in  heaven."2  Again  he  says:  "The 
tree  is  manifest  by  its  fruit ;  so  they  who  pro- 
fess to  be  Christ's  shall  be  known  by  what  they 
do."8  This  suggests  of  course  Matthew  xii. 
33,  but  the  dissimilarity  in  phrase  is  as  marked 
as  the  similarity  of  thought.  Once  more,  in 
writing  to  the  Philadelphians,  he  says :  "  The 
spirit  being  from  God  is  not  deceived ;  for  it 
knows  whence  it  comes  and  whither  it  goes, 
and  it  searches  out  all  hidden  things."  4  Possi- 

1  In  all  the  seven  Epistles  there  are  perhaps  nine  cases 
where  New  Testament  language  is  obviously  used. 

2  Ignat.  to  Eph.  v.  2.     Comp.  Matt,  xviii.  19. 
8  Ignat.  to  Eph.  xiv.  2.     Comp.  Matt.  xii.  33. 
4  Ignat.  to  Phil.  vii.  i.     Comp.  John  iii.  8. 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE    35 

bly  he  has  John  iii.  8  in  mind,1  though,  singu- 
larly enough,  the  point  of  the  expression  in 
the  one  case  is  that  the  ways  of  the  spirit  are 
not  known,  in  the  other  that  they  are  known. 
Finally,  let  us  turn  to  Ignatius's  Epistle  to 
Poly  carp,  where  we  come  at  last  upon  a  single 
clause,  sufficiently  brief  to  be  sure,  which  but 
for  its  surprising  juxtaposition  might  be  taken 
directly  from  our  Gospels  :  "  Not  every  hurt 
is  healed  by  the  same  plaster.  Soothe  paroxysms 
with  embrocations.  Be  thou  wise  as  the  ser- 
pent in  all  things,  and  harmless  as  the  dove."2 
It  is  hardly  worth  while  to  give  further  ex- 
tracts, where  they  all  tell  the 'same  story;  but 
from  these  alone  we  can  see  clearly  that  what- 
ever familiarity  with  our  Gospels  or  Epistles 
Ignatius  may  have  had,  he  finds  little  occasion 
to  show  it,  and  can  hardly  be  thought  of  as 
having  canonical  documents  in  his  hands.  This 
may  seem  very  little  light  to  gain  from  so 
renowned  a  source  ;  yet  it  is  worth  our  while 
to  have  gleaned  at  least  so  much  from  the  most 
voluminous  of  all  the  earlier  contributions  to 
our  Christian  literature.3 

1  The  phraseology  in  the  original,  so  far  as  it  goes,  is  quite 
the  same. 

3  Ignat.  to  Polycarp,  ii.  i,  2.     Comp.  Matt.  x.  id 
»  See  Note  J. 


36  PAPIAS 

Among  the  places  visited  by  Ignatius  on  his 
way  to  Rome  was  the  seaport  city  of  Smyrna, 
whose  little  church  was  presided  over  at  that 
time  by  Polycarp,  a  man  affectionately  remem- 
bered a  generation  later  as  one  who  liked  to  tell 
of  his  "  intimate  personal  familiarity  with  John, 
and  with  others  too  who  had  seen  the  Lord." l 
He  was  still  better  known  in  after  times  as  one 
of  the  first  of  the  long  line  of  Christian  martyrs. 
A  circular  epistle  from  the  church  at  Smyrna, 
written  probably  long  afterwards,2  gives  touch- 
ing details  of  the  martyrdom ;  telling  also  how 
reverently  the  bones  of  the  martyr  were  gath- 
ered up,  and  how  the  fire  "  making  a  kind  of 
arch,  like  the  sail  of  a  ship  filled  with  the  wind, 
encompassed  as  in  a  circle  the  body  of  the  holy 
martyr.  Who  stood  in  the  midst  of  it,  not  as 
if  his  flesh  were  burnt,  but  as  bread  that  is 
baked,  or  as  gold  or  silver  glowing  in  the  fur- 
nace. Moreover,  so  sweet  a  smell  came  from 
it  as  if  frankincense  or  some  rich  spices  had 
been  smoking  there." 3  The  age  of  miracles 
had  not  yet  passed. 

Polycarp  appears  in  the  annals  of  the  church 
as  a  stout  advocate  of  sound  doctrine  and  stern 

1  Iren.,  Hcer.,  iii.  3,  4  ;  Euseb.,  Hist.  Etc.,  v.  20,  6. 

2  See  Note  K. 

8  Mart,  of  Polycarp)  15. 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE     37 

foe  to  all  dissenters  ; 1  but  leaves  behind  him 
only  a  single  epistle,  written  after  the  death  of 
Ignatius  to  the  church  at  PhilippL  There  are 
the  usual  difficulties  in  the  way  of  a  hearty 
acceptance  of  this  epistle;  reminding  us  how 
few  of  the  best-attested  writings  of  the  period 
can  have  reached  us  in  quite  their  original  form. 
In  one  chapter  Ignatius  appears  as  still  living, 
and  Polycarp  asks  for  further  information  about 
him ;  in  another  he  has  already  died,  and  has  be- 
come a  saint.2  But  we  learn  not  to  be  too  exact- 
ing as  to  a  period  whose  records,  in  the  nature 
of  the  case,  cannot  have  been  solicitously 
watched  over ;  and  are  willing  to  accept  such  as 
give  reasonable  proof  of  their  genuineness.3 

In  this  epistle  we  find  little  of  the  ecclesiastic 
instinct  which  marked  the  writings  of  Ignatius. 
Not  a  bishop  is  mentioned  throughout,  though 
presbyters  and  deacons  hold  a  high  place.4  On 
the  other  hand  the  Holy  Scriptures,  and  still 
more  the  teaching  of  the  Lord,  occupy  his 
thoughts  greatly,6  as  do  also  the  letters  of  Paul, 
whom  he  is  one  of  the  first  to  honor,  and  much 
of  whose  phraseology  is  familiar  to  him.  In 
fact,  there  are  more  suggestions  of  the  New  Tes- 

1  Iren.  iii.  3,  4 ;  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  v.  24,  16. 

2  Polycarp  to  Phil.  xiii.  2;  ix.  i. 

8  See  Note  L.  *  Polycarp,  v.  3.  5  xiii  i. 


38  PAPIAS 

tament  in  this  one  short  epistle,  though  but  dim 
and  distant  echoes  at  best,  than  in  all  the  writ- 
ings of  Ignatius  put  together.  "  Remember,"  he 
writes,  "what  things  the  Lord  taught,  saying: 
Judge  not  that  ye  be  not  judged ;  forgive,  and  it 
shall  be  forgiven  to  you ;  be  ye  merciful  that  ye 
may  receive  mercy ;  with  what  measure  ye  mete 
it  shall  be  measured  to  you  again.  Also,  Blessed 
are  the  poor  and  they  that  are  persecuted  for 
righteousness'  sake,  for  theirs  is  the  kingdom 
of  God." l  This  unfamiliar  collocation  of  famil- 
iar sayings  reminds  us  at  once  of  Clement,2 
and  as  in  that  case  carries  us  from  Matt.  vii.  i,  2 
to  Luke  vi.  36-38,  and  back  to  Matt.  v.  3,  7,  10, 
before  we  discover  all  the  fragments.  Another 
passage  presents  in  new  guise  one  of  the  prac- 
tical maxims  of  the  Epistle  to  Timothy  :  "  The 
beginning  of  all  troubles  is  the  love  of  money. 
Knowing  therefore  that  we  brought  nothing 
into  the  world,  yet  have  nothing  to  carry  out, 
let  us  arm  ourselves  with  the  armor  of  right- 
eousness."3 Here  again  is  a  verse  which  puts 
tentatively  what  in  our  version  of  the  Lord's 
Prayer  appears  quite  unequivocally  ;  adding  a 
clause  as  if  from  Paul's  Epistle  to  the  Romans  : 
"  If  then  we  beseech  the  Lord  to  forgive  us,  we 

1  Poly  carp,  ii.  3.  t  2  See  p.  29. 

8  iv.  i  and  I  Tim.  vi.  10,  7. 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE    39 

ought  also  to  forgive ;  for  we  are  in  the  sight  of 
our  Lord  and  God,  and  must  all  stand  before 
the  judgment-seat  of  Christ,  and  each  one  give 
an  account  of  himself. "  l  In  the  following  verse 
we  recognize  another  passage  from  the  Lord's 
Prayer,  though  given  in  the  writer's  own  lan- 
guage, and  introducing  an  unconnected  saying 
of  the  Lord  Jesus  :  "  Beseeching  the  all-seeing 
God  with  entreaties  not  to  lead  us  into  temp- 
tation ;  as  the  Lord  said ;  The  spirit  indeed  is 
willing  but  the  flesh  is  weak."  2 

The  above  are  the  most  obvious  allusions  in 
this  Epistle  to  our  Christian  Scriptures  ;  much 
more  valuable,  it  will  be  seen,  as  showing  how 
the  bishops  of  those  days  dealt  with  the  records, 
and  in  what  condition  they  found  them,  than 
as  citations  of  any  exact  passages.  Here  is  a 
writer  who  draws  reverently  from  such  words 
of  the  Lord,  or  letters  of  Paul,  as  are  already 
current,  without  associating  them  for  a  moment 
with  the  sacred  Scriptures.  It  does  not  occur 
to  him,  more  than  to  the  other  writers  men- 
tioned above,  to  call  either  Gospel  by  name,  or 
to  quote  definitely  from  any  ;  leaving  us  to  con- 
jecture whether  this  is  owing  simply  to  the 
habits  of  the  time,  or  to  the  fact  that  the  mate- 

1  Polycarp,  vi.  2,  and  Rom.  xiv.  10, 12. 

2  vii.  2 ;  Matt.  vi.  13;  xxvi.  41. 


40  PAPIAS 

rials  of  those  Gospels  are  still  floating  from 
church  to  church,  as  uncollected  and  unsystem- 
atized  memoranda  of  a  holy  past.  There  is  a 
great  charm  in  lingering  over  a  period  marked 
by  this  easy  and  unquestioning  acceptance  of 
the  present,  undisturbed  by  anxiety  about  re- 
cords or  texts.1 

Another  interesting  relic  from  this  period  is 
the  so-called  Epistle  of  Barnabas.  That  it  was 
really  written  by  Barnabas,  the  companion  of 
Paul,2  there  is  little  internal  or  external  evidence 
to  prove ;  but  as  many  writings  of  doubtful 
authorship  and  many  claimants  for  apostolic 
authority  were  current  in  those  days,  this  does 
not  show  that  it  was  not  a  genuinely  ancient 
document.  It  may  safely  be  accepted  as  from 
an  unknown  author  of  the  early  part  of  the 
century.3 

This  Epistle  introduces  us  into  a  new  religious 
atmosphere.  The  burning  question  of  the  rela- 
tion of  Christianity  to  Judaism  was  in  the  air, 
and  the  author  is  at  pains  to  vindicate  the  right 
of  Christianity  to  stand  alone.  But  singularly 
enough  he  draws  his  proof  of  the  supremacy  of 
the  new  faith  not  from  the  Christian  Scriptures, 
but  from  the  Jewish ;  not  from  the  life  or 

i  See  Note  M.  2  Acts  xiii.  2 ;  Gal.  ii.  13. 

8  See  Note  N. 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE    41 

teachings  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  but  from  Abra- 
ham, Moses,  and  the  Prophets.  The  Jews  had 
the  Old  Testament  indeed,  and  supposed  that 
it  was  their  own,  but  they  were  mistaken. 
They  had  found  in  it  only  its'  external  historical 
sense,  which  was  false  and  a  deception  of  the 
devil.1  The  true  sense  of  the  Scriptures  is  the 
spiritual  sense,  intended  from  the  first  by  Moses, 
but  obscure  to  the  Jews  and  meant  to  be  so.2 
Thus  they  are  ours  alone,  for  we  first  see  their 
meaning.3  "  The  Prophets,  having  received 
from  him  [Jesus]  their  gift  of  [prophecy]  pro- 
phesied of  him."4  When  Moses  said,  "Enter 
into  the  good  land  which  the  Lord  sware  unto 
Abraham,  Isaac  and  Jacob  and  inherit  it,  a  land 
flowing  with  milk  and  honey,"  this  had  only  a 
figurative  meaning.  "  For  what  says  Gnosis  ? 5 
Learn.  Put  your  hope,  it  says,  in  him  who  is  to 
be  manifested  to  you  in  the  flesh,  even  Jesus/' 6 
The  high  priest  is  ordered  to  take  two  goats, 
one  for  a  burnt  offering,  the  other  to  be  ac- 
cursed. It  is  a  type  of  Jesus  "  spit  upon  and 
pricked  and  cast  forth  into  the  wilderness."7 
What  was  the  meaning  of  circumcision  ?  It 

Barnabas,  viii.  7 ;  ix.  4.  2  x.  2. 

iv.  6.  *  v.  6. 

I.  e.,  What  is  the  hidden  sense  ? 

vi.  8,  10.     Comp.  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  v.  10. 

vii.  6,  7.     Comp.  Lev.  xvi.  7, 8. 


42  PAPIAS 

was  not  of  the  flesh.  In  it  lay  a  profound  mys- 
tery, known  only  to  Abraham.  "Understand 
these  things  perfectly,  children  of  love ;  how 
Abraham,  who  was  the  first  to  circumcise,  was 
looking  forward  in  spirit  unto  Jesus  when  he 
circumcised,  having  received  the  ordinances1 
of  three  letters."  These  letters  were  the  318 
men  whom  Abraham  had  circumcised,  and 
under  318  were  hidden  Jesus  and  the  Cross.2 
Beneath  these  successive  symbols,  we  are  to 
understand,  lie  all  the  doctrines  of  Christianity. 
In  such  a  writing  we  shall  look  of  course  for 
little  of  the  New  Testament.  I  can  find  but 
two  or  three  passages  which  can  with  any  prob- 
ability be  considered  as  drawn  from  Gospel  or 
Epistle.3  But  one  of  these  is  curious  enough 
to  be  quoted,  as  showing  the  various  and  un- 
expected connections  in  which  the  same  words 
may  appear  in  days  when  literature  is  forming. 
It  gives  also  an  entirely  original  tradition  about 
the  Apostles.  "When  he  chose  his  own  apos- 
tles, who  were  to  preach  his  gospel,  he  took 
men  who  were  sinful  beyond  all  account ;  that 
he  might  show  that  he  did  not  come  to  call  the 

1  Soyfiara. 

2  Barnabas,  ix.  4,  7,  8.     Comp.  Gen.  xiv.  14 ;  xvii.  23. 

8  iv.  14,  comp.  Mt.  xxii.  14;  v.  9,  comp.  Mt.  ix.  13 ;  vi.  5, 
comp.  i  Cor.  iv.  13  (the  one  word  irepfyTj/m) ;  xii.  7,  comp. 
Rom.  xi.  36. 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE     43 

righteous  but  sinners.  So  he  manifested  him- 
self to  be  the  son  of  God. "  l  This  sounds  famil- 
iar in  a  way ;  but  if  we  ask  ourselves  where  the 
author  could  have  found  it,  the  last  place  we 
should  guess,  I  think,  considering  the  connec- 
tion, would  be  Matthew  ix.  13. 

Among  the  writings  of  this  period,  the  "  Shep- 
herd of  Hermas  "  must  not  be  forgotten.2  It  is 
little  known  to-day,  yet  at  the  time  of  which 
we  are  speaking  it  was  in  great  vogue,  and  held 
by  many  as  divinely  inspired.  Its  history  was 
unique,  and  shows  how  loosely  the  canonical 
lines  were  drawn  at  that  period.  In  the  Roman 
church  it  was  refused  a  place  among  holy  books 
on  the  ground  that  the  ranks  of  the  prophets 
and  apostles  were  already  closed,  and  also  that 
its  author  was  perfectly  well  known,3  while 
in  other  quarters  it  was  freely  quoted  as  an  in- 

1  Barnabas,  v.  9. 

2  The  Shepherd  of  Hermas  was  probably  written  about 
140,  as  the  Muratori  Canon  assigns  it  quite  definitely  to 
the  time  of  Pius,  Bishop  of  Rome  (about    140-155),  and 
claims  that  Hermas  was  the  brother  of  the  bishop.     This  is 
the  best  evidence  we  have,  though  Schwegler  and  others 
think  it  only  an  attempt  to  degrade  an  earlier  document, 
and  place  the  Shepherd  at  the  beginning  of  the  century. 
(Nachapos.   Zeitalter,  i.  328-342;    Neander,  Hist.,  i.   660; 
Kriiger,  Early  Chris.  Literature,  p.  44.) 

8  Muratori  Canon,  4. 


44  PAPIAS 

spired  work,  and  classed  as  Scripture.1  While 
one  eminent  father  declared  it  out  and  out  an 
immoral  writing,  another  of  still  ampler  learning 
cited  it  with  profound  respect,  as  if  on  a  level 
with  apostolic  writings.2  A  century  later  it 
was  still  "  publicly  read  in  the  churches,"  and 
still  under  dispute  as  a  canonical  book.3  In 
the  end,  it  seems  to  have  passed  wholly  out  of 
ecclesiastical  use,  and  would  certainly  be  re- 
garded as  of  slight  religious  worth  to-day,  how- 
ever serviceable  as  revealing  the  tastes  as  well 
as  the  religious  conditions  of  the  times. 

It  was  one  of  the  allegorical  treatises  of  the 
hour,  and  enforced  practical  precepts  through 
an  endless  series  of  Visions,  Mandates,  and  Si- 
militudes. These  revelations  were  made  to 
Hermas  by  a  mysterious  personage  in  the  cos- 
tume of  a  shepherd,  and  were  aimed  at  the 
evils  from  which  the  infant  church  was  then 
suffering,  —  love  of  the  world,  blasphemy,  be- 

1  "Divinely,  therefore,  did  the  Power  which  spoke  by 
revelation  to  Hermas  say :   These  visions   and  revelations 
are  for  those  who  are  double-minded  and  pondering  in  their 
souls,  whether,  after  all,  such  things  are  or  are  not."     Clem. 
Alex.,  Strom.,  i.  29 ;  ii.  9 ;  Iren.  iv.  20,  2. 

2  Tertull.,  Pudic.,  10,  20 ;  Origen,  De  Prin.,  iv.  1, 1 1 ;  i.  3,  3. 
8  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  3, 6 ;  iii.  25,  4 ;  Jerome,  Vir.  III.,  10. 

For  other  ancient  references  to  this  book,  see  Renan,  Hist., 
vi.  422. 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE     45 

trayal  of  the  Lord's  servants,  denial  of  Christ, 
false  prophecy.1 

In  a  treatise  of  this  prophetic  stamp,  claiming 
itself  to  be  the  direct  mouthpiece  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  we  cannot  look  for  many  scriptural  pas- 
sages ;  hardly  more,  indeed,  than  in  the  Acts 
or  the  Epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  There  are  two 
or  three,  however,  which  are  worth  quoting  as 
showing  at  least  some  familiarity  with  our  New 
Testament  phraseology.  "I,  the  angel  of  re- 
pentance, esteem  you  happy,  whosoever  are  in- 
nocent as  little  children,  since  your  portion  is 
good  and  honorable  before  God."  "Now  the 
rich  find  it  hard  to  consort  with  the  servants  of 
God,  fearing  lest  these  should  ask  something  of 
them.  Such  then  shall  hardly  enter  into  the 
kingdom  of  God."  2  On  the  other  hand,  this 
precept,  however  fine  in  itself,  would  hardly 
imply  an  acquaintance  with  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount :  "  The  day  on  which  thou  fastest  thou 
shalt  taste  nothing  but  bread  and  water ;  and 
having  reckoned  the  amount  thou  wouldst  have 
spent  upon  the  food  thou  wouldst  have  eaten 
on  that  day,  thou  shalt  give  it  to  the  widow, 
the  orphan,  the  one  in  want."  3 

The  spiritual  needs    of   generations   differ, 

1  Sim.,  viii.  6;  ix.  19,  20,  26;  Man.,  x.  xi. 

2  Sim.,  ix.  31,  3;  ix.  20,  2.  8  Sim.,  v.  3,  7. 


46  PAPIAS 

This  strange  composition  which  won  the  hearts 
of  the  best  and  highest  of  their  time,  which  was 
read  in  their  churches  with  Gospels  and  Pro- 
phets, and  almost  secured  for  itself  a  place  in 
Holy  Writ,  has  been  long  ago  forgotten,  and  we 
try  in  vain  to  revive  the  religious  needs  or  long- 
ings which  could  once  have  given  it  worth. 

Less  important  than  the  preceding,  yet  quite 
worthy  of  our  notice,  is  the  little  fragment 
which,  for  some  unknown  reason,  has  always 
borne  the  name  of  the  Second  Epistle  of  Clem- 
ent. The  first  ecclesiastical  writer  to  mention 
it  himself  questions  its  authenticity,1  and  the 
closing  paragraphs,  very  recently  discovered, 
indicate  plainly  that  it  was  no  letter  at  all,  but 
rather  a  specimen  of  the  exhortations  or  homi- 
lies used  at  the  Sunday  gatherings  of  the  young 
churches.2  Judging  from  internal  evidence  the 

1  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  38,  4. 

2  Chaps,  xii.  to  xx.  formed  part  of  the  Codex  contain- 
ing the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles.     This  was  given 
to  the  world  in  1875.     In  another  (Syriac)  manuscript  this 
writing   appears,  together  with  I  Clement,  in   a  place  of 
honor  among  the  canonical  Epistles.     The  homiletic  charac- 
ter of  the  writing  is  indicated  in  chaps.  xviL,  xix.,  xx.     One 
of  these  paragraphs  opens :  "  Let  us  not  think  to  give  heed 
and  believe  now  only,  while  we  are  admonished  by  the  Pres- 
byters, but  likewise  when  we  have  departed  home,  let  us  re- 
member the  commandments  of  the  Lord."    Again :  "  Let  us 
then  have  faith,  brothers  and  sisters."    "  Therefore,  brothers 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE    47 

writing  seems  to  belong  to  about  A.  D.  140  or 
150;  in  which  case  it  is  the  earliest  example 
that  we  possess  of  the  ancient  Christian  ser- 
mon.1 

The  Gospel  quotations  given  by  this  writer 
are  peculiar.  They  are  taken  from  what  he 
calls  "  the  Gospel,"  and  are  cited  with  the  same 
respect  as  though  found  in  the  Jewish  Scrip- 
tures.2 In  distinguishing  the  two,  however,  he 
does  not  seem  familiar  with  the  terms  Old 
and  New,  but  speaks  of  the  "  Books  "  and  the 
"Apostles."3  Nor  do  the  extracts  themselves 
correspond  altogether  with  any  in  our  Gospels, 
but  are  obviously  taken  from  some  primitive 
collection  of  Christ's  Sayings  no  longer  extant. 

and  sisters,  after  the  God  of  truth,  I  deliver  to  you  an  ex- 
portation to  pay  heed  to  what  is  written,  so  that  ye  may  save 
both  yourselves  and  him  that  readeth  among  you."  In  this 
last  passage,  the  expression  "  God  of  truth  "  seems  to  refer 
to  the  Scriptures ;  showing  that  the  homily  or  sermon  fol- 
lowed immediately  the  Scripture  reading. 

1  Julicher  places  it  at  145;  Renan  at  151;  Lightfoot  at 
120-140.     Harnack  ventures  the  hypothesis  that  this  is  the 
missive  which  Dionysius  acknowledges  in  his  letter  to  Soter, 
Bishop  of  Rome :  "  To-day  we  have  spent  the  Lord's  holy 
day  in  which  we  have  read  your  epistle."    (Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc., 
iv.  23,  n.)     If  this  were  so,  the  date  would  be  about  170. 
(Harnack,  Chron.>  440,  etc.) 

2  2  Clem.  ii.  4 ;  viii.  5. 

8  xiv.  2.     Comp.  Harnack,  Chron.,  446  n. 


48  PAPIAS 

One  of  them  sounds  like  a  distant  echo  of  Mat- 
thew, Mark,  and  Luke,  though  with  the  same 
chaotic  arrangement  which  we  have  found  so 
often  before  :  "  Saith  the  Lord ;  no  servant  can 
serve  two  masters ;  if  we  wish  to  serve  both 
God  and  Mammon,  it  is  of  no  advantage  to  us ; 
for  what  profit  is  there  if  one  gain  the  whole 
world  and  lose  his  soul  ? "  The  following  ex- 
tracts are  still  more  bizarre :  "  For  the  Lord 
saith ;  Ye  shall  be  as  lambs  in  the  midst  of 
wolves.  But  Peter  answered  and  said  to  him  ; 
What  then  if  the  wolves  shall  tear  the  lambs 
in  pieces  ?  Jesus  said  unto  Peter  ;  Let  not  the 
lambs  fear  the  wolves  after  they  have  died ;  and 
ye  too,  fear  not  them  that  kill  you  and  can  do 
nothing  to  you  ;  but  fear  ye  Him  that  after  ye 
have  died  hath  power  over  soul  and  body  to 
cast  them  into  the  gehenna  of  fire."  And  this  : 
"  For  the  Lord  himself,  when  asked  by  a  certain 
person  when  his  kingdom  would  come,  said  ; 
When  two  shall  be  one,  and  that  without  as 
that  within,  and  the  male  with  the  female,  nei- 
ther male  nor  female.  "  l 

As  this  last  passage  is  known  to  have  be- 
longed to  the  Gospel  of  the  Egyptians,  the 
natural  inference  is  that  all  the  writer's  cita- 
tions are  from  that  apocryphal  source.  This  is 

1  2  Clem.  vi.  i ;  v.  2-4 ;  xii.  2. 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE    49 

what  he  calls  "the  Gospel,"  and  is  apparently 
the  only  Gospel  he  knows.1 

Our  knowledge  of  this  period  has  been  un- 
expectedly added  to  in  our  own  time  by  the 
discovery  of  one  of  the  manuals  of  practical 
instruction  which  were  known  to  have  been 
current  in  the  early  church,  but  of  which  no 
specimen  so  complete  had  been  found  before.2 
This  is  called  the  "Teaching  of  the  Twelve 
Apostles,"  and  was  found  in  the  Library  of  the 
Holy  Sepulchre  in  Constantinople  in  1873,  and 
published  in  i883.3  It  is  hardly  time  as  yet  to 
assign  it  its  exact  place  in  Christian  literature, 
but  there  seems  little  doubt  that  it  belongs  to 
the  first  half  of  the  second  century,  and  in  any 
case  it  gives  a  picture  of  a  very  primitive  condi- 
tion of  the  Christian  church.  It  was  a  time 

1  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  iii.  13.    These  citations  are  singular 
enough  in  any  case ;  but  if  Harnack's  ingenious  hypothesis 
should  be  accepted,  we  should  have  the  remarkable  situation 
of  Dionysius,  Bishop  of  Corinth,  gratefully  receiving  from 
Soter,  Bishop  of  Rome,  for  church  uses  a   Homily  which 
draws  its  Words  of  the  Lord  chiefly,  if  not  wholly,  from  the 
Gospel  of  the  Egyptians. 

2  The  Epistle  of  Barnabas  and  the  Constitutions  of  the 
Holy  Apostles  contain  similar  precepts,  often  in  the  same 
language  and  sequence. 

8  See  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  Hitchcock  and 
Brown,  New  York,  1884;  also,  Lehre  der  zwblf  Apostel, 
nebst  Untersuchungen,  etc.,  A.  Harnack,  1883. 


50  PAPIAS 

when  there  was  as  yet  no  established  episco- 
pate, when  itinerant  preachers,  under  the  name 
of  apostles,  prophets,  or  teachers,  were  to  be 
received  and  honored  as  the  Lord,  unless  they 
showed  themselves  too  exorbitant  or  self-seek- 
ing,1 when  the  Eucharist  was  still  in  the  form 
of  an  actual  meal,2  and  when  the  ultimate  power 
rested  in  the  hands  of  the  congregation.3  Bish- 
ops and  Deacons,  equal  in  rank,  were  to  be 
appointed  by  the  people  for  administrative  func- 
tions, and  were  not  to  be  despised,  but  were 
quite  subordinate  to  the  divinely  instructed 
Prophet,  the  High  Priest,  who  is  taught  by  God, 
and  who  is  to  receive  the  firstfruits  of  "  wine- 
press and  threshing-floor,  of  oxen  and  sheep."4 
These  "Teachings  of  the  Lord,"  claiming  to 
emanate  from  his  Apostles,  were  drawn  in  large 
part,  we  may  suppose,  from  the  same  oral 
sources  to  which  Papias  looked  for  his  best 
traditions,  partly  also  from  written  records  un- 
known to  us,6  but  in  part  from  a  document  evi- 
dently familiar  to  both  writer  and  readers  called 
"the  Gospel." 6  As  this  is  the  second  time  that 

1  Chaps,  iv.,  xi.,  xii.,  xiii.  2  ix.,  x. 

8  xv.  "Appoint  for  yourselves,"  etc.  For  the  church 
organization  at  this  time,  see  J.  Reville,  Orig.  de  P  Episcopat, 
pp.  234-261;  Haraack,  -  Gesch.  d.  Altch.  Lit.,  ii.  88-158; 
"Weizsacker,  Apos.  Age,  ii.  302,  326-337. 

4  xiii.  5  End  of  ch.  i.  6  viii.,  xi.,  xv. 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE     51 

we  have  come  upon  this  title,  we  are  interested 
of  course  in  knowing  what  this  Gospel  may 
have  been.  The  only  direct  quotation  taken 
from  it  is  the  Lord's  Prayer,  given  almost  ex- 
actly as  we  find  it  in  Matthew,  and  prescribed 
to  be  repeated  three  times  in  the  day.1  Did  he, 
then,  call  Matthew  "the  Gospel,"  thinking  it 
more  authoritative  than  the  others,  or  possibly 
not  knowing  any  other ;  or  does  he  apply  the 
term  to  all  Gospel  writings  in  general,  not 
troubling  himself  to  discriminate  between  one 
Evangelist  and  another?  We  can  judge  only 
from  other  passages  of  the  manual,  where, 
though  there  is  no  reference  to  the  Gospels, 
yet  the  language  of  the  ,New  Testament,  or  lan- 
guage closely  corresponding  with  it,  is  freely 
used.  At  the  very  opening  of  the  "Teaching," 
for  instance,  occurs  this  clause :  "  The  way  of 
life  is  this  :  First,  thou  shalt  love  the  God  that 
made  thee ;  secondly,  thy  neighbor  as  thyself ; 
and  all  things  whatsoever  thou  wouldst  not 
have  happen  unto  thee  neither  do  thou  unto 
another.  Now  of  these  words  the  doctrine  is 
this :  Bless  them  that  curse  you,  and  pray  for 
your  enemies,  but  fast  for  them  that  persecute 
you.  For  what  thank  have  ye  if  ye  love  them 
that  love  you?  do  not  even  the  Gentiles  the 

1  Ch.  viii. 


52  PAPIAS 

same  ?  But  love  them  that  hate  you,  and  ye 
shall  have  no  enemy.  Abstain  from  fleshly  and 
worldly  lusts.  If  any  one  give  thee  a  blow  on 
thy  right  cheek  turn  to  him  the  other  also,  and 
thou  shalt  be  perfect ;  if  any  one  compel  thee 
to  go  a  mile  go  with  him  twain ;  if  any  one  take 
away  thy  cloke  let  him  have  thy  coat  also ;  if 
any  one  take  from  thee  what  is  thine,  ask  it 
not  back  again;  for  indeed  thou  canst  not."1 
Again,  somewhat  later,  at  the  close  of  a  chapter 
upon  the  Eucharist,  occurs  this  startling  pas- 
sage, which  might  well  have  startled  Matthew 
himself :  "  Let  no  one  eat  nor  drink  of  your 
Eucharist  but  those  that  are  baptized  into  the 
name  of  the  Lord;  for  of  this  very  thing  the 
Lord  hath  said,  Give  not  that  which  is  holy 
unto  the  dogs."2  Finally,  in  the  closing  chap- 
ter, describing  the  Lord's  coming  to  judgment, 
are  the  words  :  "  Watch  for  your  life's  sake ; 
let  not  your  lamps  go  out  nor  your  loins  be 
loosed,  but  be  ye  ready;  for  ye  know  not  the 
hour  in  which  your  Lord  cometh."  3 

In  listening  to  these  surprising  passages,  it 
seems  impossible  to  imagine  that  the  writer  had 
any  of  our  four  Gospels  in  their  present  form  be- 
fore him.  If  we  must  assume  that  it  is  either, 
a  careful  examination  of  the  text  shows  rather 

1  Ch.  i.         2  ix. ;  Matt.  vii.  6.         8  xvi. ;  Luke  xii.  35. 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE     53 

more  reminiscences  of  Matthew  than  of  the 
others ; 1  yet  if  that  Gospel  is  in  his  hands,  he 
is  certainly  treating  Matthew  with  greater  non- 
chalance than  would  be  allowable  in  these  later 
and  less  reverent  days.  If  it  be  memory-work, 
then  the  memory  was  less  to  be  trusted  in  those 
days  than  now ;  nor  is  it  easy  to  suppose  that 
in  preparing  a  manual  for  so  serious  a  service, 
a  writer  would  draw  upon  memory  alone,  if  the 
sacred  books  were  close  at  hand.  But  why 
create  for  ourselves  difficulties  which  do  not 

1  A  careful  examination  of  the  Teaching  shows  that  out 
of  twenty-three  possible  reminiscences  of  the  New  Testament 
seventeen  resemble  Matthew,  four  are  dim  suggestions  of 
Luke.  See  Hitchcock  and  Brown,  30 ;  Harnack,  65. 

Allowing  these  resemblances,  however,  it  by  no  means  fol- 
lows that  the  writer  has  either  of  our  present  Gospels  before 
him.  "  Far  from  being  later  than  the  final  revision  of  our 
Matthew,"  says  Reville,  "  the  Teaching  must  have  been  ear- 
lier than  Matthew."  (Orig.  de  rfcpiscopat,  240.)  "So  far 
as  our  material  allows  of  any  judgment,"  says  Harnack,  "  the 
author  certainly  used  some  Gospel  based  upon  Matthew,  and 
enlarged  from  Luke."  As  Harnack  finds  signs  of  an  Egyp- 
tian origin  in  the  Teaching,  he  suggests  that  the  ancient 
Gospel  evidently  in  the  hands  of  the  author  may  have  been 
the  "  Gospel  according  to  the  Egyptians ;  "  a  Gospel  quoted 
by  Clem.  Alex.  (Strom.,  iii.  9;  iii.  13),  and  known  also  to 
the  author  of  2  Clement  to  Cor.  (xii.).  It  is  less  important, 
of  course,  to  guess  which  writing  is  earlier  and  which  later, 
than  to  recognize  that  all  these  writings  belong  to  the  same 
category  of  unclassified  Gospel  material.  (See  Harnack, 
Lehre,  etc.,  159,  167.) 


54  PAPIAS 

exist,  or  forbid  these  ancient  records  to  tell 
their  own  simple  story  ?  Our  author  is  familiar 
with  a  writing  which  he  as  well  as  his  readers 
knows  as  "the  Gospel."  More  than  once  he 
refers  to  it,  in  terms  as  obvious  to  them,  we 
must  suppose,  as  perplexing  to  us.  "  Reprove 
one  another,"  he  says,  "  not  in  anger  but  in 
peace,  as  ye  have  it  in  the  Gospel.  .  .  .  But 
your  prayers  and  your  alms  and  all  your  deeds 
do  ye  as  ye  have  it  in  the  Gospel  of  our  Lord." 1 
It  is  a  Gospel  differing  from  any  now  known  to 
us.  But  if  only  four  Gospels  survived  out  of 
the  many  writings  then  in  circulation,2  many 
must  have  perished,  or  have  been  absorbed 
into  the  few  that  were  destined  to  live.  Why 
should  we  be  surprised  to  come  upon  the  traces 
of  such  provisional  forms  ?  The  early  annals 
of  our  own  modern  communities  pass  through 
various  unconscious  shapes  before  assuming 
their  final  historic  character;  why  expect  the 
process  to  have  been  less  gradual  seventeen  or 
eighteen  centuries  ago  ?  If  the  "  Teaching 
of  the  Twelve  Apostles"  helps  the  Christian 
world  to  a  more  intelligent  understanding  of 
its  early  records,  it  will  serve  a  far  higher  pur- 
pose than  the  study  of  its  doctrines  is  likely  to 
accomplish.3 

i  Ch.  xv.  2  Luke  i.  i.  8  Note  O. 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE    55 

A  still  more  startling  discovery  of  these  later 
years  was  made  upon  the  Nile  in  1886.  How- 
ever little  light  Egyptian  archaeological  explora- 
tions have  thrown  upon  the  Old  Testament, 
they  have  succeeded,  in  this  instance  at  least, 
in  giving  most  unexpected  additions  to  our 
slender  materials  concerning  the  New.  In  un- 
earthing old  Coptic  graves  at  Akhmim  l  on  the 
east  bank  of  the  Nile,  not  far  from  Girgeh,  the 
French  came  upon  an  eighth  or  ninth  century 
manuscript  containing,  among  other  Christian 
writings,  a  fragmentary  narrative  of  the  cruci- 
fixion and  resurrection  of  Christ.  It  was  appar- 
ently a  piece  of  a  larger  document,  and  has 
properly  neither  beginning  nor  end,  but  closes 
in  this  abrupt  way  :  "  But  I  Simon  Peter,  and 
Andrew  my  brother,  taking  our  nets  departed 
to  the  Sea,  and  with  us  was  Levi  the  son  of 
Alphaeus  whom  the  Lord  " 2  .  .  .  It  claims, 
then,  to  have  been  written  by  the  Apostle 
Peter;  an  interesting  promise  in  itself,  but 
still  more  so  as  there  are  ancient  allusions  to 
a  Gospel  of  Peter  which  have  hitherto  excited 

1  Or  Ekhmim. 

2  See  Akhmim  Fragment  of  Apocryphal  Gospel  of  St.  Peter, 
H.  B.  Swete,  1893 ;    Bruchstiicke  des  Evan,  und  der  Apoca- 
lypse des  Petrus,   A.  Harnack,  1893.     The  manuscript  con- 
tained fragments  of  the  Gospel  and  Apocalypse  of  Peter, 
and  also  two  fragments  of  the  Book  of  Enoch. 


56  PAPIAS 

great  curiosity  without  affording  any  definite 
clue  to  the  writing  itself. 1 

It  is  hardly  time  as  yet  for  the  New  Testament 
scholars,  who  alone  are  competent  to  pass 
judgment  here,  to  have  reached  very  confident 
conclusions  on  all  the  points  started  by  this 
discovery ;  but  they  agree  apparently  in  regard- 
ing our  fragment  as  the  closing  passages  of  the 
lost  "  Gospel  according  to  Peter,"  and  ascribe 
it  pretty  unanimously  to  the  early  part  of  the 
second  century.  It  seems  a  strange  freak  of 
fortune  which  enabled  an  obscure  Coptic  monk 
of  the  eighth  century  to  hand  down  to  us  a  gos- 
pel record  of  which  every  trace  had  been  lost 
to  the  learned  world  since  the  earliest  times.2 

At  last,  then,  we  have  a  Gospel ;  and  one 
which,  though  superseded  in  the  end,  was  at 
one  time  unhesitatingly  used  in  Christian 
churches  of  the  East.  About  A.  D.  200,  for 
instance,  Serapion,  the  Bishop  of  Antioch,  in 
visiting  a  Cilician  church  of  his  diocese,  found 
the  Gospel  of  Peter  in  use  there.  At  first  he 

1  Origen  on  Matthew  x.  17;    Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii..3,  2; 
iii.  25,  6;  vi.  12.     Comp.  Harnack,  3.     Origen  quotes  from 
this  Gospel  the  tradition  that  the  brothers  of  Jesus  were 
from  another  wife  of  Joseph,  before  Mary. 

2  "Between  Eusebius  and  the  date  of  this  manuscript 
there  is  no  independent  notice  of  the  existence  of  the  Gospel 
of  Peter."    (Harnack,  5.) 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE     57 

gave  himself  no  trouble  about  it,  but  afterwards, 
on  finding  that  it  was  creating  some  agitation 
in  the  community,  satisfied  himself  that  it  con- 
tained a  few  doubtful  doctrines,  and  forbade  its 
further  circulation.1  I  will  give  full  citations 
from  this  Gospel  to  show  its  character  as 
compared  with  those  more  familiar  to  us.  It 
is  a  short  fragment  at  best,  and  begins  appar- 
ently in  the  midst  of  some  such  scene  as  is 
depicted  in  Matthew  xxvii.  24.  Pilate  has  prob- 
ably just  washed  his  hands  as  our  narrative 
begins. 

"  But  of  the  Jews  not  one  washed  his  hands, 
neither  did  Herod,  nor  one  of  his  judges.2  And 
as  they  refused  to  wash  their  hands,  Pilate 
arose ;  and  at  once  Herod  the  king  commands 
them  to  seize  the  Lord,  saying  to  them,  what  I 
have  ordered  you  to  do  to  him,  that  do.  Now 
there  was  present  there  Joseph  the  friend  of 
Pilate  and  of  the  Lord,  and  as  he  saw  that  they 
were  about  to  crucify  him,  he  came  to  Pilate 
and  besought  the  body  of  the  Lord  for  burial.3 

1  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  vi.  12.     This  happened  at  Rhosse. 

2  Herod's  prominence  shows  quite  a  different  tradition 
from  that  of  our  Gospels,  though  suggesting  Luke  xxiii.  7. 

8  Joseph  is  evidently  the  same  as  Joseph  of  Arimathaea, 
though  he  comes  forward  in  this  narrative  at  a  much  earlier 
moment  than  in  the  other  Gospels  (Matt,  xxvii.  57),  and 
figures  here  in  the  unfamiliar  role  of  a  friend  of  Pilate. 


58  PAPIAS 

And  Pilate  sent  to  Herod  and  begged  for  the 
body,  and  Herod  said  :  Even  if  no  one  had  asked 
for  it,  we  should  have  buried  him  before  the 
first  day  of  Unleavened  Bread,  their  feast  (for 
the  Sabbath  was  already  dawning,  and  it  is 
written  in  the  Law,  that  the  sun  shall  not  go 
down  upon  one  that  is  slain).1  Then  they  seiz- 
ing the  Lord  dragged  him  off  upon  the  run, 
saying;  Let  us  hale  the  Son  of  God  now  we  have 
him  in  our  power." 2  .  .  .  "And  they  brought 
two  malefactors,  and  crucified  the  Lord  between 
them,  and  he  remained  silent,  as  one  who  suf- 
fered no  pain."3  .  .  .  "But  one  of  the  male- 
factors rebuked  them  (the  soldiers)  saying ;  We 
are  suffering  for  the  evil  we  have  done,  but  this, 
the  Saviour  of  men,  what  wrong  has  he  done 
you  ? 4  And  they  were  wroth  with  the  male- 
factor, and  ordered  that  his  bones  be  not  broken, 

1  According  to  this  account  the  crucifixion  must  have 
taken  place  before  the  Passover  began ;  while  in  Matthew, 
Mark,  and  Luke  the  Passover  began  the  night  before  the 
crucifixion.      Our  Gospel  agrees  in  this  respect  with  the 
Gospel  of  John.     (John  xiii.  I ;  xviii.  28.) 

2  vv.  1-6. 

3  v.  10.     This  idea  that  Jesus  did  not  suffer  on  the  cross 
is  not  found  in  either  of  our  Gospels,  but  became  current 
very  naturally  as  the  belief  in  his  super-terrestrial  nature 
established  itself.     In  later  days  this  was  called  Docetism. 

4  More  like  Luke  xxiii.  40,  41,  than  Matt,  xxvii.  44,  or 
Mark  xv.  32.     j^. 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE     59 

that  he  might  die  in  torture.1  Now  it  was 
noonday  and  darkness  covered  the  whole  of 
Judaea,  and  they  were  troubled  and  distressed 
lest  the  sun  had  gone  down  while  he  still  lived."  2 
.  .  .  "And  many  went  about  with  torches 
thinking  it  was  night  and  fell  down.  And  the 
Lord  cried  aloud  saying  ;  My  Power,  my  Power, 
thou  hast  forsaken  me  ;  and  as  he  said  this  he 
was  taken  up."  3  ...  "Then  the  Jews  and  the 
elders  and  the  priests  saw  what  evil  they  had 
brought  upon  themselves,  and  began  to  beat 
their  breasts  and  say ;  Woe  upon  us  for  our  sins, 
the  judgment  is  drawing  near  and  the  end  of 
Jerusalem.  But  I  and  my  companions,  troubled 
and  sick  at  heart,  hid  ourselves,  for  they  pur- 
sued us  as  malefactors,  thinking  we  would  burn 
the  temple.  And  after  all  these  things  we 
fasted  and  sat  night  and  day  groaning  and 
lamenting  until  the  Sabbath."  4 .  .  .  "  And  Pilate 

1  A  singular  reminiscence  of  the  same  tradition  is  found  in 
John  xix.  32,  33,  though  in  a  very  different  form. 

2  w.  13-15. 

8  vv.  1 8, 19.  ri  Svvafj.ts  fj-ov.  "  Power  "  may  perhaps  be  used 
here  in  a  mystic  sense,  to  designate  the  celestial  spirit  which 
had  dwelt  in  Christ  during  his  human  career,  but  had  now 
left  him;  or  possibly  it  is  the  author's  understanding  of 
Psalms  xxii.  i  (as  quoted  Matt,  xxvii.  46).  Comp.  Har- 
nack,  65,  66.  The  phrase  "  taken  up "  refers  to  the  final 
"  ascension  "  of  the  Lord.  (Acts  i.  2.) 

*  vv.  25-27.    An  altogether  independent  tradition. 


60  PAPIAS 

gave  them  Petronius  the  centurion  with  soldiers 
to  guard  the  grave,  and  with  them  came  elders 
and  scribes  to  the  sepulchre ;  and  when  they 
had  all,  soldiers  and  centurion  together,  rolled 
a  great  stone  to  the  door  of  the  sepulchre,  they 
set  it  there  and  placed  upon  it  seven  seals,  and 
pitching  there  their  tent  they  kept  watch.  And 
as  the  Sabbath  dawned  a  great  multitude  came 
from  Jerusalem  and  round  about  to  see  the 
sepulchre  that  was  sealed.  And  in  the  night  as 
the  Lord's  day  broke,  as  the  soldiers  kept  watch 
by  two  and  two,  came  a  loud  voice  from  heaven, 
and  they  saw  the  heavens  open  and  two  men 
descend  in  dazzling  light  and  draw  near  the 
sepulchre.  Then  that  stone  which  had  been 
set  at  the  door  rolled  aside  and  gave  way  of 
itself,  and  the  grave  opened  and  the  two  young 
men  entered.  But  when  the  soldiers  saw  this 
they  aroused  the  centurion  and  elders  who  had 
been  watching  with  them,  and  as  they  told 
them  what  they  had  seen,  again  they  behold 
three  men  coming  out  from  the  grave  two  of 
them  supporting  one,  and  following  them  a 
cross  ;  and  the  heads  of  the  two  reached  up  to 
the  heavens,  and  the  head  of  him  whom  they 
supported  towered  above  the  heavens  ;  and  they 
heard  a  voice  from  heaven  saying,  Hast  thou 
preached  unto  them  that  sleep  ?  and  from  the 


PRIMITIVE  CHRISTIAN  LITERATURE    61 

cross  came  the  answer,  Yes.1  And  they  debated 
with  each  other  whether  they  should  go  unto 
Pilate  and  announce  these  things,  and  even  as 
they  meditate,  again  the  heavens  are  opened 
and  a  man  descends  and  enters  into  the  sep- 
ulchre."2 

It  will  hardly  be  claimed  that  this  curious 
fragment  lends  much  pathos  or  impressiveness 
to  these  tragic  hours  ;  but  it  shows  as  nothing 
else  could  the  fantastic  handling  to  which  the 
historic  facts  were  subjected,  and  the  varied 
streams  of  tradition  through  which  they  have 
come  down  to  us.  However  mythical  and  ex- 
travagant this  Gospel  may  appear  to  us,  it  found 
a  ready  hearing,  it  seems,  in  those  uncritical 
days.  Its  exact  relation  to  our  four  Gospels 
we  must  leave  to  professional  scholars  in  due 
time  to  determine,  supposing  it  to  be  a  deter- 

1  This  dramatic  passage  shows  how  differently  the  tradi- 
tions of  the  resurrection  took  shape  in  different  localities. 
The  allusion  to  "  them  that  sleep  "  is  probably  a  reference 
to  the  descent  of  Christ  into  hell ;  an  incident  unknown  to 
our  four  Gospels,  but  the  belief  in  which  soon  sprang  up  to 
account  for  the  interval  during  which  the  spirit  of  Jesus 
had  left  the  body,  yet  had  not  risen  from  the  grave,    (i  Pet. 
iii.  19;   Gospel  of  Nicodemus,  xiii.-xx.)     Still  later  it  was 
believed  that  the  Apostles  also  had  preached  to  those  in 
Hades.     (Clem.  Alex.  vi.  6.)    Matt,  xxvii.  52,  53,  may  be 
another  form  of  the  same  legend. 

2  vv.  31-44. 


62  PAPIAS 

minable  question.1  If  the  author  writes  with 
our  Gospels  before  him,  he  shows  singular  dis- 
regard of  their  authority,  and  readiness  to  follow 
independent  traditions.  Yet  after  all  he  can 
hardly  differ  more  from  them  than  they  differ 
from  each  other  ;  and  we  may  well  content  our- 
selves with  taking  the  Gospel  upon  its  merits, 
as  one  more  token  of  the  character  of  the 
Christian  literature  of  the  century,  and  the  kind 
of  apostolic  narratives  which  were  then  contend- 
ing for  acceptance  as  authentic  records  of  Jesus' 
ministry.2 

1  It  is  a  little  odd  to  find  some  biblical  critics  asserting 
with  full  assurance  that  "  the  use  of  our  four  Gospels  "  by 
the  Gospel  before  us  "  is  now  established  beyond  all  reason- 
able doubt."    (New  World,  December,  1894,  pp.  703,  704.) 
They  forget  that  a  similar  problem,  the  relation  of  Justin  to 
our  four  Gospels,  after  existing  for  seventeen  centuries,  and 
after  full  critical  discussion  for  three  generations,  is  to-day 
as  hotly  contested  by  scholars  as  ever. 

2  Note  P. 


CHAPTER   III 

TWO    LEARNED    DOCTORS 

AFTER  these  prolonged  antiquarian  re- 
searches, somewhat  fatiguing  to  the  reader  no 
doubt,  it  is  refreshing  to  come  at  last  upon  two 
living  personalities.  We  have  returned  once 
more  to  the  times  of  Papias,  and  as  it  happens, 
to  his  own  land  of  Asia  Minor. 

The  first  of  the  two  is  Justin,  known  to  Chris- 
tian history,  because  of  his  violent  death,  as  Jus- 
tin the  Martyr.  He  tells  us  that  he  was  born 
in  Neapolis  in  Samaria,  the  Shechem  of  the 
Old  Testament,  familiar  to  modern  travelers 
as  Nablous.1  Having  philosophical  tastes,  he 
went  about  from  school  to  school,  and  our  first 
glimpse  of  him  is  at  Ephesus  in  the  colonnades 
of  the  gymnasium,  where  he  is  recognized  by 
his  professional  garb,  and  accosted  by  a  stranger 
with  the  words,  "  Hail,  O  Philosopher."  2  The 
stranger  proves  to  be  the  Jew  Trypho,  against 
whom  Justin,  who  has  just  become  a  convert 

1  Justin,  ApoL,  i.  I. 

2  Dial,  with  Trypho,  i  ;  Euseb.  iv.  18,  6. 


64  PAPIAS 

to  Christianity,  defends  his  new  faith.  In  due 
time  his  zeal  for  that  faith  made  him  its  most 
famous  champion  before  the  pagan  world,  and 
led  him  even  to  address  the  emperors  Anto- 
ninus Pius  and  Marcus  Aurelius,  urging  them 
as  lovers  of  the  truth  to  investigate  for  them- 
selves the  claims  of  Christianity.1  Whether 
his  appeal  ever  actually  reached  the  hands  of 
the  emperors,  or  was  noticed  by  them,  is  more 
than  doubtful ;  but  fortunately  it  has  reached 
our  hands,  and  is  one  of  our  most  precious 
legacies  from  the  past.  It  is  from  his  two  so- 
called  "Apologies,"  and  his  "Dialogue  with 
Trypho,"  that  we  get  not  only  our  knowledge 
of  Justin  himself,  but  also  our  best  picture  of 
the  state  of  Christianity  towards  the  middle  of 
the  second  century.2 

As  this  is  our  first  opportunity  to  observe  the 
mental  processes  by  which  in  those  times  edu- 
cated pagans  became  converts  to  Christianity, 
we  turn  to  Justin's  words  with  great  curiosity. 
And  not  in  vain :  he  meets  us  with  the  engag- 
ing frankness  characteristic  of  earlier  hours, 
and  tells  us  all  that  we  wish  to  know.  After 
turning  from  Stoic  to  Peripatetic,  he  says,  from 

1  ApoL,  i.  1-3. 

2  These  writings  belong  to  about  150-160.     On  this  point, 
see  Note  Q. 


TWO   LEARNED  DOCTORS  65 

Peripatetic  to  Pythagorean,  and  finally  from 
Pythagorean  to  Platonist,  he  met  unexpectedly 
an  ancient  man,  meek  and  venerable  in  bearing, 
who  proved  to  him,  by  a  few  Socratic  questions, 
that  his  whole  preceding  search  for  the  truth 
was  vain.  "Long  ago,"  said  this  stranger, 
"  there  existed  a  class  of  men  more  ancient 
than  any  of  these  who  are  regarded  as  philoso- 
phers, blessed  men,  righteous,  and  beloved  of 
God,  who  spoke  by  the  holy  spirit,  and  pre- 
dicted things  to  come,  which  are  now  happen- 
ing. These  are  called  Prophets.  They  alone 
discovered  the  truth  and  disclosed  it  to  men, 
holding  no  man  in  reverence  nor  fearing  any, 
nor  desirous  of  glory,  but  speaking  those  things 
alone  which  they  had  heard  and  seen  ;  filled  by 
the  holy  spirit."  ..."  And  at  once  a  fire  was 
kindled  in  my  soul,"  says  Justin,  "and  love  of 
the  Prophets  seized  me,  and  of  those  men  who 
are  friends  of  Christ.  And  revolving  in  my 
mind  his  words,  I  found  this  philosophy  alone 
to  be  safe  and  profitable."  l  These  Prophets 
are  of  course  the  Old  Testament  Prophets,  and 
it  is  their  testimony  which  wins  Justin  to  the 
new  philosophy  and  the  new  faith.  "  For  with 
what  reason,"  he  adds  in  another  place,  "  can 
we  believe  that  a  crucified  man  is  the  first-born 

l  Trypho,  2,  3,  7,  8. 


66  PAPIAS 

of  the  unbegotten  God,  and  is  himself  to  hold 
judgment  upon  the  whole  human  race,  unless 
before  he  came  and  became  man,  we  find  pre- 
dictions of  his  coming,  and  see  these  prophecies 
actually  fulfilled?"1 

This  is  not  quite  what  we  had  expected.  We 
are  so  accustomed  to  find  the  evidence  of 
Christianity  in  its  own  lofty  precepts  and  the 
character  of  its  founder,  that  it  is  hard  to  put 
ourselves  in  the  place  of  one  who  accepts  it 
solely  because  Moses  or  Isaiah,  centuries 
before,  had  formally  predicted  it.  Not  that 
Justin  failed  to  feel  the  moral  force  of  the 
new  faith.  He  bears  full  witness  to  this,  and 
it  may  well  be  that  it  was  this  which  first 
attracted  his  attention.  "I  could  wish,"  he 
says,  "  that  all  might  be  of  the  same  mind  with 
myself,  and  no  longer  depart  from  the  words  of 
the  Saviour ;  for  they  have  in  them  something 
to  inspire  awe,  and  put  to  shame  those  who 
stray  from  the  right  path,  and  to  those  who 
practice  them  bring  the  sweetest  peace."  2  But 
for  the  convincing  proof  of  the  claims  of  Chris- 
tianity he  has  to  look  elsewhere.  He  believes 
that  the  babe  born  of  Mary  was  the  Christ, 
because  Isaiah  said :  "  Behold,  a  virgin  shall 

l.y  i.  53;  also,  ii.  12. 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  67 

conceive,  and  bear  a  son."  l  When  Micah  said, 
"  But  thou,  Bethlehem,  though  thou  be  little  .  .  . 
yet  out  of  thee  shall  he  come  that  is  to  be 
ruler  of  Israel,"  he  clearly  prophesied  the  place 
of  the  Messiah's  birth.2  When  the  Psalmist 
\  wrote,  "  They  pierced  my  hands  and  my  feet," 
lhe  foretold  the  crucifixion.3  "And  that  which 
was  narrated  by  Moses,  and  prophesied  by  the 
Patriarch  Jacob,  'He  washed  his  garments  in 
wine,  and  his  vesture  in  the  blood  of  grapes/ 
signified  that  he  would  wash  with  his  own  blood 
those  that  believed  in  him." 4  The  words, 
"I  gave  my  back  to  the  smiters,"  announced 
Christ's  scourging.5  "  They  shoot  out  the  lip, 
they  shake  the  head,  they  part  my  garments 
among  them,  and  cast  lots  upon  my  vesture," 
predicted  the  scoffings  of  the  Jews,  and  the 
parting  of  the  garments  at  the  cross.  The 
twelve  Apostles  were  clearly  foretold  in  the 
twelve  bells  on  the  robe  of  the  high  priest ;  the 
Christian  rite  of  baptism  received  its  sanction 
from  the  words  of  Isaiah,  "Wash  you,  make 
you  clean,  put  away  the  evil  of  your  doings." 

1  Apol.,  i.  33.     Comp.  Is.  vii.  14. 

2  Apol.,  i.  34.     Comp.  Mic.  v.  2. 

*  ApoL,  i.  35.     Comp.  Ps.  xxii.  16. 

*  Trypho,  54.     Comp.  Gen.  xlix.  II. 
6  ApoL,  i.  38.     Comp.  Is.  1.  6. 


68  PAPIAS 

Even  the  Eucharist  was  sacred  because  fore- 
told in  the  fine  flour  of  the  Jewish  sacrifice,  and 
in  Malachi's  denunciation  of  those  who  profane 
the  Lord's  table.1 

To  us  this  torturing  of  ancient  texts  seems 
a  weary  and  futile  task.  It  robs  the  old  Scrip- 
tures of  their  freshness  and  grace,  to  force  them 
into  an  unwilling  service.  It  spoils  good  his- 
tory and  good  poetry,  to  make  poor  prophecy. 
But  the  temper  of  those  earlier  days  was  not 
the  temper  of  ours.  The  New  Testament  itself 
has  some  startling  illustrations  of  this  same 
practice.2  There  were  other  Christian  Fathers 
beside  Justin  ready  to  declare  that  Christ  could 
never  have  been  known,  not  even  in  his  mira- 
cles, but  for  a  previous  announcement  by  the 
Prophets.3  One  convert  from  paganism  makes 
no  mention  of  Jesus  at  all  in  commending  his 
new  faith ;  resting  all  upon  Old  Testament 
prophecy.4  Justin  is  not  alone,  therefore,  in 
discovering  the  supreme  test  of  Christianity  in 
the  Jewish  Scriptures. 

For  the  rest,  this  first  encounter  between 

1  ApoL,   i.  35,  61  ;    Trypho,  41,  42.      Comp.  Ps.  xxii.  7, 
18;    Ex.  xxviii.  33;    Is.  i.  16;    Mai.  i.   10,   12;    Lev.  xiv. 
10,  21. 

2  i  Cor.  xv.  3,  4 ;  Gal.  iii.  8 ;  i  Cor.  x.  4. 
8  Tertullian  adv.  Marc.  iii.  3. 

*  Theophilus  ad  Autolycum ;  also,  Minucius  Felix. 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  69 

Christianity  and  the  world's  philosophy  is  a  suf- 
ficiently friendly  one.  Justin  finds  no  reason 
for  ruling  out  all  other  wisdom  because  he  has 
found  the  highest.  Socrates,  he  claims,  differed 
from  Jesus  in  this :  he  had  his  share  of  the 
divine  Word;  Jesus  was  that  Word.  "The 
teachings  of  Plato  are  not  different  from  those 
of  Christ,  only  they  are  not  altogether  the  same ; 
and  so  with  the  others,  Stoics,  poets,  and  histo- 
rians. For  each  one,  having  a  share  of  the 
pregnant  divine  word,  caught  what  was  peculiar 
to  himself,  and  spoke  it."  l  Thus  Justin  saved 
for  his  new  faith  all  that  he  most  prized  in  the 
old,  and  declared,  with  a  generous  rhetorical 
sweep,  "Whatever  has  been  said  well  by  any 
one  belongs  to  us  Christians."2  Indeed,  he 
quite  convinced  himself  that  Plato  and  his  fel- 
lows borrowed  all  their  doctrines  from  Moses.3 
Meantime,  however,  with  the  best  purpose  in 
the  world,  he  found  it  impossible  to  free  himself 
from  all  his  pagan  notions  at  a  stroke.  Like 
so  many  others  of  his  time,  he  still  breathed  a 
polytheistic  atmosphere,  after  he  supposed  him- 
self converted  to  monotheism.  His  devils,  as 
evil  spirits,  play  a  formidable  r61e,  and  are  quite 

1  Afol.ti.  5,  6;  ii.  13. 

2  ii.  13.  »  i.  44,  60. 


70  PAPIAS 

as  genuine  gods  as  the  Jupiters  and  Mercurys 
whom  he  renounced.1 

We  are  prepared  from  the  above  account  to 
find  the  Jewish  Scriptures  fully  represented  on 
Justin's  pages.  In  fact,  few  Old  Testament 
writers  of  importance  remain  unmentioned,  and 
the  quotations,  though  given  with  the  looseness 
characteristic  of  that  period,  show  a  greater 
familiarity  with  Hebrew  literature  than  would 
be  expected  from  a  non-Jewish  author.  They 
are  his  only  "Scriptures."2  With  the  New 
Testament,  on  the  contrary,  he  shows  himself 
much  less  concerned;  even  though  defending 
his  faith  against  pagan  and  Jew.  Take  out  two 
chapters  from  the  "  First  Apology "  and  eight 
from  the  "  Dialogue  with  Trypho,"  and  we  should 
learn  very  little  from  Justin  about  the  Christian 
Scriptures.3  Nor  does  he  think  it  worth  while 
to  attach  any  names  to  his  citations,  and  never 
speaks  of  them  as  Scripture.  At  the  same 
time  his  reverence  for  the  teachings  of  Jesus  is 
profound,  as  we  have  seen,  and  in  defending  the 

1  ApoL,  i.  26 ;  ii.  6,  8 ;  i  Cor.  x.  20. 

2  For  a  discussion  of  Justin's  use  of  the  Old  Testament, 
and  the  text  which  he  probably  followed,  see  Hilgenfeld's 
Evangelien  Justin 's  und  Marciorfs,  46-62  ;  Renan,  Hist.,  vi. 
38i. 

8  The  larger  part  of  Justin's  New  Testament  citations  are 
found  in  ApoL,  i.  15,  16,  and  Trypho^  100-107. 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  71 

Christian  mode  of  life,  he  urges  upon  the  atten- 
tion of  the  emperors,  as  his  best  illustration, 
the  words  of  Christ  himself.  These  extracts 
are  quite  worthy  our  attention.  He  introduces 
them  with  these  words  :  "  Lest  we  should  seem 
to  you  to  be  playing  the  sophist,  we  think  it 
well,  before  entering  upon  our  treatise,  to  cite  a 
few  of  the  teachings  of  Christ  himself.  Brief 
and  concise  words  were  his ;  for  he  was  no 
sophist,  but  his  word  was  the  power  of  God." 
Then  come  these  passages  :  "  Now  concerning 
chastity,  he  spoke  thus :  Whosoever  looketh 
upon  a  woman  to  lust  after  her  hath  committed 
adultery  already  in  his  heart  before  God.  And, 
If  thy  right  eye  offend  thee,  cut  it  out ;  for  it  is 
better  for  thee  to  enter  into  the  kingdom  of 
heaven  with  one  eye,  than  with  two  to  be  cast 
into  eternal  fire.  And,  Whosoever  marrieth  her 
that  is  divorced  from  another  man  committeth 
adultery.  And,  There  are  some  who  have  been 
made  eunuchs  of  men,  and  there  are  some  who 
have  been  born  eunuchs,  and  there  are  some 
who  have  made  themselves  eunuchs  for  the 
kingdom  of  heaven's  sake.  But  not  all  receive 
this."  "And  in  regard  to  loving  all,  he  taught 
as  follows  :  If  ye  love  them  that  love  you,  what 
new  thing  do  ye  ?  for  even  the  f ornicators  do 
this.  But  I  say  unto  you,  pray  for  your  ene- 


72  PAPIAS 

mies,  and  love  those  that  hate  you,  and  bless 
them  that  curse  you,  and  pray  for  them  that 
despitefully  use  you.  But  as  to  sharing  with 
the  needy,  and  doing  nothing  for  glory,  he  said 
these  things :  Give  to  every  one  that  asketh, 
and  from  him  that  would  borrow  of  thee  turn 
not  thou  away.  For  if  ye  lend  to  them  of  whom 
ye  hope  to  receive,  what  new  thing  do  ye  ?  even 
the  publicans  do  this.  Lay  not  up  for  your- 
selves treasures  upon  earth,  where  moth  and 
rust  doth  corrupt  and  robbers  break  through ; 
but  lay  up  for  yourselves  treasures  in  the  hea- 
vens, where  neither  moth  nor  rust  doth  corrupt. 
For  what  is  a  man  profited  if  he  gain  the  whole 
world,  and  lose  his  own  soul  ?  or  what  shall  he 
give  in  exchange  for  it?  Lay  up  treasures 
therefore  in  the  heavens,  where  neither  moth 
nor  rust  doth  corrupt.  And,  Be  ye  kind  and 
merciful,  as  your  Father  also  is  kind  and  merci- 
ful, and  maketh  his  sun  to  rise  upon  sinners 
and  just  men  and  wicked.  Take  no  thought 
what  ye  eat  or  what  ye  shall  put  on ;  are  ye  not 
better  than  the  birds  and  the  beasts  ?  And 
God  feedeth  them.  Take  no  thought  therefore 
what  ye  eat  or  what  ye  shall  put  on ;  for  your 
heavenly  Father  knoweth  that  ye  have  need  of 
these  things.  But  seek  ye  the  kingdom  of  hea- 
ven and  all  these  things  shall  be  added  unto 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  73 

you.  For  where  the  treasure  is,  there  is  also 
the  mind  of  the  man.  And,  Do  not  these  things 
to  be  seen  of  men,  otherwise  ye  have  no  reward 
from  your  Father  who  is  in  heaven.  And  con- 
cerning our  being  forbearing  and  ready  to  serve, 
what  he  said  was  this :  To  him  that  smiteth 
thee  on  the  one  cheek,  offer  also  the  other; 
and  him  that  taketh  away  thy  cloak  or  coat,  for- 
bid not.  And  whosoever  is  angry  is  in  danger 
of  the  fire.  And  every  one  that  compelleth 
thee  to  go  with  him  a  mile,  follow  him  two. 
And  let  your  good  works  shine  before  men, 
that  they  seeing  them  may  reverence  your  Fa- 
ther which  is  in  heaven."  ..."  Swear  not  at 
all ;  but  let  your  yea  be  yea,  and  your  nay  nay ; 
for  whatsoever  is  more  than  these  cometh  of 
evil."  .  .  .  "The  greatest  commandment  is,  Thou 
shalt  worship  the  Lord  thy  God  and  him  only 
shalt  thou  serve  with  all  thy  heart  and  with  all 
thy  strength ;  the  Lord  God  that  made  thee." 
.  .  .  "And  many  will  say  unto  me,  Lord,  Lord, 
have  we  not  eaten  and  drunk  in  thy  name,  and 
done  mighty  works  ?  And  then  will  I  say  unto 
them,  Depart  from  me,  ye  workers  of  iniquity. 
Then  shall  there  be  wailing  and  gnashing  of 
teeth,  when  the  righteous  shall  shine  as  the 
sun,  and  the  wicked  are  sent  into  everlasting 
fire.  For  many  shall  come  in  my  name,  clothed 


74  PAPIAS 

outwardly  in  sheep's  skins,  but  inwardly  being 
ravening  wolves.  By  their  works  ye  shall  know 
them.  And  every  tree  that  bringeth  not  forth 
good  fruit  is  hewn  down  and  cast  into  the  fire." 1 
It  will  be  seen  from  the  above  that  we  are 
not  yet  on  familiar  Gospel  ground.  Though 
these  passages  sound  more  like  our  New  Tes- 
tament than  anything  previously  cited,  yet  the 
collocations  are  still  quite  as  unexpected,  and 
single  phrases,  when  compared  with  our  four 
Gospels,  as  inexact.2  Moreover,  as  in  previ- 
ous cases,  other  writings  wholly  unknown  to- 
day are  used  side  by  side  with  the  rest  as  of 
equal  authority.  One  of  these  is  mentioned  by 
name  :  the  "Acts  of  Pilate,"  a  document  which 
seems  to  have  been  of  importance  then,  but  of 
which  we  now  know  nothing.3  But  where  are 
we  to  look  for  such  Gospel  passages  as  this  ? 
"  Then  when  Jesus  had  gone  to  the  river  Jor- 
dan, as  he  stepped  into  the  river,  a  fire  was 
kindled  in  the  Jordan  ;  ...  so  wrote  the  Apos- 
tles of  this  very  Christ  of  ours."  Or  as  this? 
"  Again  he  said ;  I  will  give  you  power  to 
trample  under  foot  serpents  and  scorpions  and 

i  ApoL,  i.  14-16.  2  See  Note  R. 

8  ApoL,  i.  35,  48.  The  Gospel  of  Nicodemus,  called  also 
the  Acts  of  Pilate,  belongs  to  a  much  later  time.  Comp. 
Harnack,  Chron.,  603-612. 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  75 

scolopendras,  and  all  the  might  of  the  enemy." 
Or  this  ?  "  For  when  among  men,  Christ 
worked  as  a  carpenter,  making  ploughs  and 
yokes,  thus  teaching  the  symbols  of  righteous- 
ness and  an  active  life."  And  what  a  primitive 
condition  of  things  it  must  have  been  when 
Jesus  could  be  represented  in  the  same  passage 
as  speaking  through  the  Gospels  and  speaking 
through  the  Psalms  :  "  When  on  earth  ...  he 
answered  one  who  called  him  Good  Master, 
'  Why  callest  thou  me  good  ? '  But  when  he 
says,  '  I  am  a  worm  and  no  man ;  a  reproach  of 
men,  and  despised  of  the  people/  he  was  pro- 
phesying things  which  are  now  coming  to  pass 
and  happening  to  him."  1 

Shall  we  not  say,  then,  as  we  have  been 
tempted  to  do  in  previous  cases,  that  Justin 
must  have  been  quoting  from  memory ;  intro- 
ducing passages  from  our  four  Gospels,  together 
with  many  from  other  sources,  and  not  always 
remembering  exactly  where  they  belonged? 
It  cannot  be  denied  that  this  would  be  a  very 
natural  habit  in  days  when  written  documents 
were  so  much  rarer  than  now ;  indeed,  his  cita- 
tions from  the  Old  Testament  seem  often  of 
this  character,  though  the  Jewish  Scriptures 
unquestionably  existed  in  written  form,  and 

i  Trypho,  88,  76 ;  88,  101 ;  Ps.  xxii.  6. 


76  PAPIAS 

are  cited  generally  by  name.1  No  doubt,  there- 
fore, many  of  these  Gospel  quotations  are  also 
from  memory.  That  they  cannot  all  be  so, 
however,  appears  from  the  fact  that  what  at 
first  seem  quite  arbitrary  dislocations  of  familiar 
passages  recur  in  the  same  order  more  than 
once,  and  are  found  also  in  other  contemporary 
writers ;  indicating  the  existence  of  some  col- 
lection of  Gospel  incidents  and  sayings  at  pre- 
sent quite  unknown.2 

A  little  light  is  thrown  upon  this  puzzling 
problem  by  Justin's  own  language.     Although 

1  That  Justin  often  quotes  the  Old  Testament  memoriter 
seems  to  be  generally  conceded.     In  many  cases,  however, 
where  he  departs  from  the  established  text,  he  is  apparently 
following  some  special  version  then  in  vogue.     Hilgenfeld 
supposes  such  a  text  prepared  for  Christian  uses.     (Evan- 
gelien  Justin? s  und  Marciorfs,  46—62.) 

2  Trypho,  49,  in  its  account  of  John  the  Baptist  by  the  Jor- 
dan, varies  from  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke ;  but  repeats  the 
same  variation  in  chaps.  51  and  88.     Compare,  also,  ApoL,  i. 
1 6,  with  Trypho,  76  (the  passage,  "  eaten  and  drunk  in  thy 
name  ").     Also  ApoL,  i.  16,  and  Trypho,  35  ;   Trypho,  17  and 
112.      In   ApoL,  i.  63,  the   passage,   "No  man  knew  the 
Father,"  etc.,  is  given  twice,  both  times  varying  from  Matt. 
xi.  27  in  the  same  way ;  and  appears  again  with  the  same 
variation  in  Try p ho,  100.     This  same  variation  is  found  also 
in  Iren.  i.  20,  3 ;  iv.  6,  i ;  Clem.,  Horn.,  xviii.  4  ;  Recog,,  ii.  47. 
In  ApoL,  i.  1 6,  the  passage,  "  Let  your  yea  be  yea,"  etc., 
differs  from  Matt.  v.  37,  but  corresponds  with  Jas.  v.  12, 
and  also  with  Clem.,  Horn.,  iii.  55;  xix.  2.    (See  Schwegler, 
Nachap.  Zeitalter,  i.  225,  255.) 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  77 

he  never  quotes  from  a  New  Testament  writer 
by  name,  yet  in  a  few  cases  he  introduces  his 
citation  with  the  words  :  "  This  is  recorded  in 
the  '  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles/  "  In  one  case 
he  says :  "  For  the  Apostles  in  the  Memoirs 
which  have  come  from  them,  which  are  called 
Gospels,  have  delivered  unto  us  thus  what  was 
enjoined  upon  them."  Another  expression  is, 
"In  the  Gospel  \\.  is  written."  * 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  Justin  has  some 
document  or  documents  before  him  which  he 
calls  indiscriminately  Memoirs,  Gospels,  Gospel, 
or  Teachings ;  as  though  these  terms  were  of 
like  import,  or  as  if  the  title  Gospel  were  just 
coming  into  use  in  Christian  circles,  as  applied 
to  the  written  word.2  Whether  it  is  one  writ- 
ing or  several,  or  simply  a  general  collection  of 
whatever  bore  upon  the  life  and  words  of  Jesus, 

1  The  terms   Memoirs,  Gospel,  or  Gospels,  are  found : 
ApoL,  i.  66,  67 ;   Trypho,  10,  100,  101,  103-107. 

2  The  term  Gospel  was  used  at  first  for  the  message  of 
Christianity  as  preached  (Matt.  iv.  23 ;  xxiv.  14);  also,  per- 
haps, for  any  general  narrative  of  Christ's  life  and  words. 
(Mark  i.  I.)    In  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  it  seems 
to  refer  to  a  written  document  of  some  kind  (viii.,  xi.,  xv.) ; 
so,  also,  perhaps  in  Ignat.  to  Philadelphians  (v.  i,  2  ;  ix.  2), 
though  it  is  not  easy  to  tell  whether  this  means  the  written 
or  the  spoken  Gospel.     These  cases,  with  Justin's,  would 
indicate  that  the  word  is  needed  by  this  time  for  written 
records  of  the  life  of  Jesus. 


78  PAPIAS 

there  is  nothing  in  his  language  to  show ;  but 
as  he  speaks  later  of  its  being  read  regularly 
at  the  Sunday  gatherings,  we  may  infer  that 
it  is  some  recognized  collection,  and  that  the 
Christian  records  are  at  last  beginning  to  claim 
their  place  beside  the  older  Scriptures.1  It 
would  solve  many  riddles,  had  Justin  guessed 
what  interest  these  citations  would  have  for 
distant  generations,  and  given  us  his  documents 
in  full.  This  was  far  from  his  thought,  however, 
and  we  are  left  to  bald  conjecture,  based  on  the 
few  hints  he  has  afforded  us.  That  these  docu- 
ments can  be  our  four  Gospels  in  the  form  in 
which  we  have  them  seems  altogether  improb- 
able ;  not  only  because  he  rarely  follows  the 
text  of  the  Gospels  exactly,  but  because  it  is 
difficult  to  understand  why,  if  he  had  such 
universally  recognized  works  in  his  hands,  he 
should  never  once  have  mentioned  their  names, 
nor  claimed  their  authority.  If  it  be  urged  that 
in  addressing  pagan  emperors  it  was  little  to  the 
purpose  to  mention  names  unknown  to  them,  it 
must  be  remembered  that  the  Jewish  Prophets 
were  equally  unknown  and  unhonored  by  pagan 
emperors  ;  yet  while  Justin  brings  forward  with 
much  circumstance  Moses,  Isaiah,  Micah,  and 
David,2  it  never  occurs  to  him  to  mention  Mat- 

i  Apol.,  i.  67.  2  i.  32,  33,  34,  35. 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  79 

thew,  Mark,  Luke,  or  John.1  Nor  does  it  occur 
to  him,  when  introducing  quite  foreign  and 
extraordinary  material,  unknown  to  these  Evan- 
gelists, to  inform  us  that  he  is  quoting  from 
uncanonical  authorities.2  If  we  were  to  judge 
from  the  character  of  the  passages  above  given, 
which  form  the  larger  part  of  Justin's  citations, 
we  should  surmise  that  Matthew's  was  more 
likely  to  be  his  Gospel  than  either  of  the  oth- 
ers;3 unless,  indeed,  he  is  using  a  primitive 
collection  of  the  precepts  of  Jesus  which  was 
afterwards  fashioned  into  the  Sermon  on  the 
Mount.4  These  intermediate  stages  of  literary 
growth  are  of  the  highest  interest  to  the  stu- 
dent of  Christian  history,  and  one  feels  little  de- 

1  He  mentions  the  Apostle  John,  it  is  true,  but  only  as 
the  author  of  the  Revelation.     As  the  passage  contains  the 
sole  reference   by  Justin  to  a  New  Testament  writer,  it  is 
worth  giving  in  full :  "  There  was  with  us  a  certain  man 
whose  name  was  John,  one  of  the  Apostles  of  Christ,  who 
prophesied  in  a  revelation  granted  to  him,  that  those  who 
believed  in  our  Christ  would  live  a  thousand  years  in  Jeru- 
salem."    (TrypAo,$i.) 

2  Trypho,  76,  88,  101. 

8  Out  of  forty-nine  passages  given  by  De  Wette,  thirty- 
eight  bear  a  general  resemblance  to  Matthew,  seven  to  Luke, 
one  possibly  to  Mark,  and  three  to  John.  (Introd.  to  New 
Testament,  §  66  a.) 

*  It  will  be  noticed  that  the  greater  part  of  the  extracts 
given  in  the  text  belong  to  Matthew  v.-viii. 


8o  PAPIAS 

sire  to  minimize  or  belittle  their  evidence.  One 
case  of  this  kind,  showing  how  ideas  or  even 
phrases  may  be  in  the  air,  or  on  men's  lips,  be- 
fore assuming  their  final  historic  form,  is  quite 
too  curious  to  be  omitted.  After  describing  to 
his  imperial  readers  the  rite  of  Christian  bap- 
tism, he  illustrates  the  meaning  of  that  rite  by 
words  from  Christ  and  the  prophet  Isaiah. 
Those  of  Christ  are  given  as  follows :  "  Then 
they  are  brought  by  us  where  there  is  water,  and 
are  regenerated  (born  anew)  in  the  same  way 
in  which  we  were  regenerated.  .  .  .  For  Christ 
also  said ;  Except  ye  be  regenerated,  ye  shall 
not  enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven.  Now 
that  it  is  impossible  for  those  once  born  to  enter 
the  wombs  of  those  that  bore  them,  is  plain  to 
all." l  No  one  can  read  this  without  being  re- 
minded of  the  Nicodemus  episode  in  the  Fourth 
Gospel.2  The  turn  of  expression,  as  well  as 
the  connection  of  ideas,  is  altogether  too  pecul- 
iar to  suppose  a  mere  coincidence.  At  the  same 
time,  the  variations  of  phrase  are  too  marked 
to  suppose  one  writer  copying  from  the  other. 
Least  of  all  is  it  supposable  that  Justin  would 
quote  such  a  passage  from  John,  the  beloved 
disciple  of  the  Lord,  without  acknowledging  his 
authority,  and  should  even  introduce  as  his  own 

1  Apol.,  i.  61.  2  John  iii.  3,  4. 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  81 

comment  upon  Christ's  words  what  was  really 
a  portion  of  the  language  of  the  Apostle.1  But 
such  verbal  resemblances,  or  apparent  plagia- 
risms, are  not  so  uncommon  in  literature  that 
we  need  be  astonished  at  them  here,  or  waste 
our  ingenuity  in  useless  conjecture.  The  cases 
of  Tennyson  and  Shelley,  or  of  Shakespeare 
and  Montaigne,  or  a  hundred  other  historic  in- 
stances, help  us  easily  to  understand  how  Justin 
and  John  also  might  draw  unconsciously  from 
each  other's  material,  or  both  together  employ  a 
current  phrase  which  had  not  yet  been  appropri- 
ated by  any  accepted  Gospel.2  However  under- 
stood, this  passage,  with  the  others  already 
given,  even  if  leaving  us  in  some  perplexity, 
throws  welcome  light  upon  the  hidden  processes 
by  which  the  crude  materials  of  Gospel  and 
Epistle  3  were  gradually  shaping  themselves  into 
the  Christian  Scriptures. 

1  Schwegler   calls  attention  to  the  resemblance  of  this 
passage  to  Matt,  xviii.  3,  and  also  Clem.,  Homilies,  xi.  26,  all 
of  which  agree  in  their  deviations  from  John  iii.  3, 4.    As  the 
Clementine  Homilies  certainly  draw  from  the  ancient  Gospel 
according  to  Hebrews,  Schwegler  concludes  that  this  Gospel 
is  the  common  source  of  the  passages  in  Matthew,  John, 
Justin,  and  the  Clementines.     (Nachap.  Zeitalter,  i.  218.) 

2  See  Life  of  Tennyson  (1897),  ii.  385;  Letters  and  Re- 
mains of  Edward  Fitzgerald,  i.  311  ;  J.  M.  Robertson,  Mon- 
taigne and  Shakspere,  London,  1897. 

3  Justin  makes  no  mention  of  the  Apostle  Paul,  and  shows 


82  PAPIAS 

Let  me  close  this  account  of  Justin  by  quot- 
ing the  following  pleasant  description  of  the 
Sunday  observances  of  that  period,  the  first 
that  has  come  down  to  us.  It  shows  that  some 
apostolic  writings  were  beginning  at  this  time 
to  share  with  the  Jewish  Prophets  the  honor  of 
being  publicly  read  in  the  churches,  an  honor 
granted  also  to  letters  of  eminent  pastors,  sent 
from  church  to  church.1  "  On  the  day  called 
the  day  of  the  sun,  there  is  a  gathering  in  one 
place  of  all  those  who  live  in  city  or  field,  and 
the  memoirs  of  the  Apostles  or  the  writings  of 
the  Prophets  are  read  aloud  so  long  as  there  is 
time.  Then  when  the  reader  ceases,  the  presi- 
dent speaks,  calling  attention  to  these  excellent 
things  and  exhorting  to  an  imitation  of  them. 
Then  we  all  rise  together  and  offer  prayers ; 
and  when  the  prayer  is  over,  bread  is  brought 
and  wine  and  water,  and  the  president  in  like 
manner  offers  prayers  and  thanksgivings,  to  the 

no  familiarity  whatever  with  his  writings.  Not  a  single  pas- 
sage can  with  any  certainty  be  considered  as  even  suggested 
by  Paul's  Epistles.  This  may  be  intentional,  as  Paul  was 
long  the  object  of  suspicion  among  Jewish  Christians  ;  or  it 
may  mean  that  his  Epistles  had  as  yet  only  a  local  circula- 
tion. 

1  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  23,  n.  According  to  this  passage, 
letters  from  Clement  and  Soter,  both  bishops  of  Rome,  were 
read  on  Sunday  by  the  Corinthians  at  their  public  service. 


TWO   LEARNED    DOCTORS  83 

best  of  his  ability,  and  the  people  shout  their 
assent,  saying  Amen ;  and  there  is  a  distribution 
of  the  things  for  which  thanks  have  been  given, 
and  each  one  participates  in  them  ;  and  to  those 
not  present  a  portion  is  sent  by  the  deacons."  * 
By  far  the  most  striking  figure  of  this  period 
is  Marcion,  an  exact  contemporary  of  both  Jus- 
tin and  Papias,  whom  we  find  exciting  great 
commotion  in  Rome  about  A.  D.  I5<D.2  He  was 
a  native  of  Pontus  on  the  Black  Sea,  a  region 
even  more  remote  from  our  associations  with 
Christianity  than  either  Hierapolis  or  Ephesus. 
As  his  opponents  rally  him  as  a  "  shipmaster," 
this  may  have  been  his  first  occupation,  though 
if  so,  it  was  soon  abandoned,  and  Marcion  gave 
himself  to  more  serious  pursuits.3  Christian 
missionaries  had  been  in  those  parts  in  the  first 
century,4  and  Marcion' s  father  is  said  to  have 

1  Justin,  Apol.,  i.  67.    For  a  review  of  Justin's  Gospel,  see 
Note  S. 

2  Justin,  ApoL,  i.  26 ;  Iren.,  Har.,  iii.  3,  3 ;  iii.  3,  4 ;  iii.  4, 
3;  Euseb.,  .#z.tf.  Ecc.,  iv.  10  ;  iv.  n,  2  ;  v.  13,  3.     According 
to  these  references,  Marcion  must  have  been  in  full  activity 
in  Rome  about  150-155. 

8  Tertull.,  Prats.,  30 ;  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  v.  i ;  Euseb., 
Hist.  Sec.,  v.  13,  3.  These  designations  of  "  mariner,  "  "  ship- 
master of  Pontus,"  may  be  simply  a  playful  way  of  referring 
to  the  habits  of  the  seaboard  of  Pontus. 

*  The  well-known  letter  of  Pliny  the  Younger  to  Trajan 
was  written  from  Amisus  in  Pontus,  in  112.  (Epis.,  x.  96,  97. 
See  Renan,  Hist.,  v.  476.) 


84  PAPIAS 

been  himself  bishop  of  a  church  there.  It  is 
possible,  therefore,  that  Marcion  was  born  in 
the  faith ;  but  whether  so  or  not,  he  regarded 
the  new  doctrines  in  a  very  different  light  from 
that  in  which  they  appeared  to  Justin,  and  ap- 
proached them  from  a  far  more  individual  stand- 
point. According  to  one  account,  his  father 
expelled  him  from  the  church  for  his  discordant 
views.1 

No  doubt  Marcion  was  inclined  from  the  first 
to  independent  notions  of  his  own,  and  whether 
driven  from  the  church  or  not,  sought  larger 
opportunities  than  Pontus  could  afford,  and 
naturally  turned  his  steps  to  the  great  centre 
which  was  drawing  to  itself  so  many  of  the 
restless  spirits  of  the  age.  His  first  appear- 
ance in  Rome,  if  we  may  trust  a  later  historian, 
was  sufficiently  dramatic.  Entering  for  the 
first  time  an  assembly  of  Roman  presbyters, 
he  asked  them  abruptly :  "  Tell  me,  what  does 
this  mean  ?  Neither  do  men  put  new  wine  into 
old  bottles ;  else  the  bottles  break,  and  the 

1  Epiphanius,  Hcer.,  xlii.  These  assaults  upon  the  char- 
acter and  early  life  of  Marcion  are  to  be  taken  with  much 
allowance.  It  is  even  difficult,  among  the  conflicting  ac- 
counts, to  tell  whether  he  was  born  a  Christian  or  not.  One 
speaks,  as  above,  of  his  father  as  a  bishop ;  another  of  his 
having  "  lost  the  God  whom  he  had  found,"  as  though  he 
had  come  from  another  faith.  (Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  i.  i.) 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  85 

wine  runneth  out,  and  the  bottles  perish ;  but 
they  put  new  wine  into  new  bottles,  and  both 
are  preserved."  x  In  those  days  many  points 
which  seem  to  us  to  have  been  settled  from  the 
beginning  were  still  open ;  and  this  momentous 
question  of  the  new  wine  in  old  bottles  was 
evidently  forcing  itself  on  the  church  just 
now  for  an  explicit  answer.  The  new  wine  was 
Christianity;  the  old  bottles  were  the  Jewish 
Scriptures.  This  was  by  no  means  the  first 
time  that  the  inconsistency  of  a  young  faith 
wearing  still  the  livery  of  a  past  belief  had 
dawned  on  the  Christian  mind.2  But  the  times 
had  been  unpropitious  before,  and  the  ancient 
Scriptures,  as  we  have  seen,  had  held  then- 
place,  generation  after  generation,  unchallenged. 
Up  to  this  hour,  in  many  quarters  the  Christian 
Church  was  hardly  aware  that  it  was  not  still  a 
synagogue.3 

This  time-honored  view  Marcion  takes  the 
liberty  to  resent.  To  him  Paul,  half  forgotten 
as  he  was,  was  a  truer  teacher  than  the  older 
Apostles  whom  the  church  had  followed  so  slav- 

1  Epiph.,  Htzr.,  xlii.  2 ;  Matt.  ix.  1 7. 

2  Gal.  ii.  16;  iii.  13,  25;  2  Cor.  iii.  6,  16;  Heb.  viii.  13. 

8  Jas.  i.  I ;  ii.  2.  ("  If  there  come  into  your  synagogue"} 
Rev.  vii.  4-8 ;  xxi.  12.  According  to  Eusebius,  the  church  at 
Jerusalem  had  "  bishops  of  the  circumcision "  down  to  the 
time  of  Hadrian.  (Hist.  Ecc.>  iv.  5,  3 ;  iv.  6,  4.) 


86  PAPIAS 

ishly.  Paul,  in  fact,  was  the  only  true  Apostle, 
setting  himself  at  the  outset  once  for  all  against 
Peter  and  his  kind.1  From  him  came  the  un- 
adulterated Gospel,  which  all  the  old  chronicles, 
claiming  to  be  apostolic,  had  persistently  cor- 
rupted. Had  not  Paul  carried  the  Gospel  to 
the  Gentiles,  had  he  not  denounced  circumci- 
sion and  the  Law  as  beggarly  elements  ? 2  Who 
so  worthy  an  interpreter  of  Christianity  as 
Paul  ?  That  these  views  regarding  Paul  were 
not  acceptable  to  all,  we  can  readily  conceive. 
"Wherefore,  O shipmaster  of  Pontus,"  says  one 
of  Marcion's  best  haters,  "  if  you  take  no  stolen 
or  contraband  goods  into  your  craft,  if  you  have 
never  smuggled  your  cargo  or  used  false  in- 
voices, will  you  not  be  even  more  conscientious 
and  faithful  in  divine  affairs  ?  Tell  us  then, 
under  what  head  you  took  the  Apostle  Paul  on 
board,  who  stamped  or  labeled  him,  who  for- 
warded him  to  you,  who  embarked  him ;  that 
you  may  boldly  land  him,  and  not  find  him 
claimed  as  property  by  the  one  who  furnished 
him  with  all  his  apostolic  apparatus. "  3  This  is 
sharp  language.  But  as  the  worthy  Father  who 
uses  it  has  unwittingly  preserved  for  us  all  that 
we  have  of  the  writings  of  Marcion,  we  must 

1  Gal.  ii.  3,  4,  11-14;  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  v.  3;  i.  20. 

2  Gal.  iv.  9.  8  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  v.  i. 


TWO   LEARNED    DOCTORS  87 

forgive  him  his  wrath.  It  is  good  jesting  after 
all,  and  no  doubt  Marcion,  like  most  reformers, 
went  farther  in  his  zeal  than  was  necessary. 

And  indeed  Marcion  was  not  a  man  to  stop 
halfway.  Having  once  declared  the  Jewish 
Scriptures  no  genuine  Scriptures,  he  pushed  on 
and  pronounced  the  Jewish  Jehovah,  with  his 
sacrificial  worship  and  cruel  rites,  no  true  God. 
The  old  dispensation  was  at  best  but  a  prelim- 
inary and  baser  phase  of  religious  development, 
which  Christianity  came  to  displace.  In  these 
days  the  magic  term  "  evolution "  might  have 
offered  itself  as  a  solution  of  the  hard  pro- 
blem ;  but  no  such  phrase  was  then  at  hand, 
and  the  pitfall  of  dualism  lay  on  the  edges  of 
every  such  dispute.  Marcion  did  not  wholly 
avoid  it.1  To  his  thought,  either  Judaism  was 
one  with  Christianity,  or  it  was  not.  Certainly, 
then,  it  was  not.  It  was  a  stern,  unpitying 
code,  which  stood  in  sharpest  contrast  with  the 
tender  Gospel  of  Christ.  Christianity  was  not 
its  fulfillment,  it  was  its  abrogation.  Judaism 
stood  at  best  for  justice  simply,  untempered  by 

1  Iren.,  Har.,  i.  xxvii.  2 ;  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  i.-v.  We 
have  to  remember  that  Tertullian,  whose  five  books  against 
Marcion  are  our  chief  authority  for  the  following  account, 
and  who  wrote  half  a  century  later  than  Marcion  himself, 
may  be  ascribing  to  the  master  some  of  the  vagaries  of  his 
many  followers. 


88  PAPIAS 

mercy.  Jehovah  was  the  incarnation  of  aus- 
terity. Such  deeds  as  the  spoiling  of  the 
Egyptians,  the  slaughtering  of  the  Amalekites, 
the  human  offerings  on  Jehovah's  altar,  were  no 
tokens  of  a  good  and  loving  Deity.  Is  not  a 
good  tree  known  by  its  fruits  ?  Nay,  does  not 
Jehovah  of  the  Jews  himself  confess,  "  I  am  he 
that  createth  evil"?1  Then  the  God  whom 
Jesus  reveals  is  not  the  God  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  another  and  higher.  The  one  is  at 
best  the  just  God,  the  other  the  good.  The  one 
was  the  Creator  of  the  finite  universe,  ruling 
over  the  world,  and  thinking  himself  the  only 
God,  the  other  the  Supreme  Deity,  unknown 
at  first,  but  finally  revealed  in  Christ.  The 
Law  of  Moses  was  for  the  people  of  this  lower 
God,  whose  precepts  had  to  be  reversed  when 
the  true  Messiah  appeared.2  The  thought  of 
Jehovah  as  "greater  than  all  gods,"  "a  great 
king  above  all  gods,"3  had  long  been  familiar 
to  both  Jewish  and  Christian  minds.  Jehovah 
was  a  god  in  Marcion's  heavens  in  the  sense  in 
which  all  celestial  beings  were  often  in  those 
days  conceived  as  gods;4  as  attendants  upon 

1  Is.  xlv.  7. 

2  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  i.  2,  6,  19,  27,  28;  ii.  20,  28;  iv.  29, 
16,  25. 

8  Ps.  xcvi.  4 ;  cxxxv.  5 ;  xcv.  3. 
*  I  Cor.  viii.  5 ;  Eph.  i.  2 1  ;  iii.  10. 


TWO   LEARNED    DOCTORS  89 

Deity,  or  emanations  from  the  Supreme,  to  be 
superseded  in  due  time  by  a  more  perfect  incar- 
nation. To  Marcion  Jesus  was  this  fuller  em- 
bodiment of  the  divine.  To  him  Jesus  was  all 
in  all.1  To  him  the  mission  of  Jesus  was  not 
the  culmination  of  an  old  epoch,  it  was  the 
opening  and  announcement  of  an  epoch  abso- 
lutely new.  The  fancied  predictions  of  his 
coming  on  which  the  other  Fathers  wholly  re- 
lied, Marcion  scorned.2  The  Christ  needed  no 
such  help.  He  was  his  own  evidence.  Here 
was  a  distinct  issue  between  Marcion  and  his 
opponents.  "If  Christianity  was  to  be  be- 
lieved," said  they,  "it  needed  to  be  built  upon 
the  foundation  of  prearrangement  and  pro- 
phecy." "  Not  so,"  replied  Marcion,  "  for  Christ 
was  to  prove  himself  at  once  the  Son,  the  Sent, 
the  Christ  of  God,  by  his  very  deeds  and  the 
evidence  of  his  works."  3  Christ  was  the  per- 
fect essence  of  the  divine ;  God  revealing  him- 
self ;  the  Son  of  God  in  highest  sense.4  But 
if  Christ  was  in  any  true  sense  God,  so  con- 
sistent was  Marcion,  then  he  could  not  have 

1  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  i.  6,  8,  19. 

2  Certain  critics  of  those  days  seem  already  to  have  dis- 
covered that  the  Hebrew  word  translated  "  virgin  "  in  Is.  vii. 
14  means  simply  "young  woman."     Tertullian  pronounces 
them  "  Jewish  deceivers."    (iii.  13.) 

8  iii.  2,  3.  4  i.  n,  14;  iii.  2,  8,9;  iv.  7. 


90  PAPIAS 

been  man.  His  human  life  could  have  been 
only  apparently  human ;  a  phantom  existence ; 
his  flesh  no  real  flesh,  his  sufferings  no  real  suf- 
ferings, his  death  no  actual  death.1  With  no 
fulminations  of  future  councils  or  subtilties  of 
later  creeds  before  his  eyes,  Marcion  shrunk 
from  none  of  these  conclusions.  He  was  un- 
pardonably  logical. 

It  will  be  easily  understood  that  to  such  a  stu- 
dent of  the  Jewish  and  Christian  revelations,  the 
documents  of  the  early  church  would  be  of  great 
concern.  Others  had  treated  them  as  of  subor- 
dinate worth,  holding  firmly  to  Law  and  Pro- 
phets;2 to  him  the  Christian  Scriptures  were 
of  the  utmost  importance.  Whatever  he  finds 
he  subjects  to  careful  scrutiny,3  claiming  that 
the  records  were  already  corrupted,  and  that 
they  needed  restoration.4  He  seems  to  have 
been  the  first  to  apply  to  the  records  of  the 
early  faith  the  tests  of  accuracy  or  genuineness. 
His  enemies,  when  weary  of  invective,  banter 
him  as  "so  very  punctilious  an  investigator."5 
How  searching  his  critical  methods  were  does 

1  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  iii.  8-n  ;  iv.  10.     See  p.  58. 

2  This  seems  to  have  been  true  of  many  Christian  writers 
quite  late  in  the  century.     (Melito,  in  Euseb.  iv.  26,  12-14. 
Melito  wrote  about  170-180.) 

3  Iren.  i.  27,  2 ;  iii.  12,  12  •,  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  v.  19  ;  iv.  4. 

4  i.  20.  5  v.  17. 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  91 

not  appear ;  but  it  is  clear  that  he  accepted 
little  on  trust,  and  exercised  a  degree  of  dis- 
crimination which  in  later  ,days,  when  such 
questions  of  the  text  had  been  officially  passed 
upon,  was  considered  very  reprehensible.1  As 
Paul  was  Marcion's  highest  authority,  and 
Paul's  writings  to  his  mind  the  most  trust- 
worthy record  of  the  primitive  faith,  we  are  not 
surprised  to  come  upon  full  references  to  this 
Apostle's  Epistles,  from  which  we  are  able  to 
judge  for  the  first  time  of  the  number  then 
generally  accepted.  Marcion  mentions  ten,  call- 
ing the  Ephesians  the  "  Epistle  to  the  Laodi- 
caeans"  (quite  correctly,  perhaps),  and  wholly 
omitting  Timothy,  Titus,  and  Hebrews.2  The 
great  apocalyptic  vision,  or  Revelation,  which 
delighted  the  souls  of  so  many  of  his  contem- 
poraries, had  no  charm  for  Marcion,  or  is  wholly 

1  Marcion  is  constantly  accused  of  mutilating  the  Scrip- 
ture text  to  serve  his  scandalous  doctrines.     As  this  charge 
was  a  common  one  in  those  days,  however,  it  would  seem  to 
mean  only  that  the  Scripture  text  was  not  yet  fixed,  and  was 
much  at  the  mercy  of  each  copyist.     His  enemies  appear  to 
have  indulged  in  a  little  interpolation  of  their  own  in  case  of 
need.     (iv.  25.)     They  confessed  that  if  Marcion  was  really 
bent  upon  "  expunging  "  what  he  did  not  like,  he  might  have 
made  much  more  thorough  work  of  it.     (iv.  43.) 

2  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  v.  2-21.     According  to  Epiphanius, 
Marcion  made  a  collection  of  the  Epistles  under  the  title 
of  "  Apostolicon."     (ffar.t  xlii.  10.) 


92  PAPIAS 

unknown  to  him,  as  he  passes  it  by  unnoticed. 
The  Book  of  Acts  he  treats  in  the  same 
manner.1 

Applying  the  same  critical  temper  to  such 
Gospel  narratives  as  were  then  in  circulation, 
he  finds  but  one  that  he  can  accept ;  or  at  least 
mentions  no  other.  This  one,  so  far  as  we  can 
judge  from  the  description  of  it  given  by  his 
opponents,  bore  a  close  resemblance  to  our 
Gospel  of  Luke,  and  must  have  been  very 
nearly  the  same.2  Yet  the  unlikeness  is  quite 
as  marked  as  the  likeness,  and  introduces  us 
to  another  of  the  perplexing  problems  of  which 
these  early  annals  are  so  full.  It  had  no  name ; 
Marcion  seems  quite  unaware  that  it  had  any 
association  with  Luke.  It  had  none  of  the 
opening  chapters  of  our  Luke,  relating  to  the 
birth  and  childhood  of  Jesus,  or  his  temptation 
and  connection  with  John  the  Baptist,  and 
began  abruptly  with  his  entrance  into  Caper- 
naum.3 It  had  nothing  to  say  either  of  the 
agony  at  Gethsemane  or  the  suffering  on  the 

1  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  iv.  5 ;  v.  2 ;  Pr&s.,  2,  23. 

2  As  Tertullian  reviews  the  Gospel  of  Marcion  passage  by 
passage,  in  order  to  refute  it,  we  are  thus  enabled  to  judge 
of  its  character.     For  a  complete  reconstruction  of  it,  see 
Zahn,  Kanonsgesch.,  ii.  409-529 ;  also,  De  Wette,  Introd.  to 
New  Test.,  §  71  b. 

8  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  iv.  7. 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  93 

cross.1  To  his  critics,  writing  a  generation 
later,  and  assuming  that  Marcion  had  the  four 
Gospels  to  choose  from,  all  this  seemed  very 
suspicious.  They  charged  him  with  mutilating 
the  Gospel  of  Luke,  expunging  at  will  what- 
ever conflicted  with  his  peculiar  notions  of  God 
and  Christ.  Marcion  has  come  down  in  Chris- 
tian history  as  one  who  "  strove  to  destroy  the 
character  of  those  Gospels  which  had  appeared 
under  the  names  of  Apostles  or  companions  of 
Apostles,  in  order  to  secure  for  his  own  Gospel 
the  credit  which  he  took  from  them."  2 

It  cannot  be  denied  that  some  of  the  changes 
which  he  made,  if  changes  they  were,  seemed 
to  have  a  dogmatic  purpose.  If  Christ  had 
really  the  celestial  character  which  Marcion 
assigned  to  him,  his  human  birth  or  temptation 
or  his  human  agonies  could  have  had  but  little 
meaning.  At  the  same  time,  it  must  be  re- 
membered that  before  the  New  Testament 
canon  was  established,  many  different  texts 
must  have  been  competing  for  acceptance,  and 
must  have  been,  as  they  certainly  were,  very 
freely  handled.  How  else,  indeed,  could  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew,  supposing  that  the  author 

1  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  iv.  40,  41.     For  other  changes  or 
omissions,  see  De  Wette's  tables. 

2  iv.  3- 


94  PAPIAS 

had  Mark  before  him,  have  sprung  out  of 
Mark;  or  Luke  in  turn  out  of  its  two  prede- 
cessors ?  Marcion  was  at  worst  a  falsifier  only 
in  the  sense  in  which  Matthew  and  Luke  can 
be  called  falsifiers.  Everything  indicates  that 
he  was  a  conscientious  and  scrupulous  student 
of  the  early  records,  convinced  that  they  were 
much  corrupted,  and  anxious  to  purify  them. 
Some  later  critics  go  so  far  as  to  assume  that 
Marcion's  Gospel  was  really  older  than  Luke's, 
and  may  even  have  been  the  original  from 
which  Luke  was  drawn ;  its  name  being  given 
it  at  a  later  day.1  In  any  case,  it  must  not  be 
forgotten  that  if  it  already  bore  the  name  of 
Luke,  Marcion  had  every  inducement  to  call  it 
so.  As  Luke  was  a  companion  of  Paul,  Marcion 
would  have  been  only  too  glad  to  claim  such 
authority  for  the  Gospel  he  was  using. 

These  are  points  which  we  must  leave  to  the 
biblical  critics  to  determine.  Meantime,  what- 
ever their  decision,  the  whole  situation  thus 
revealed  is  of  singular  interest.  Here  is  the 
first  serious  and  competent  critic  of  ancient 

1  Baur,  Die  Kan,  Evangelien,  397-427  ;  Schwegler,  Nachap. 
Zeitalter,  i.  260-284.  In  certain  passages  many  critics  agree 
that  Marcion  has  an  older  text  than  our  Luke.  Holtzmann, 
EinL,  22,  23;  Hilgenfeld,  Evang.  Marcion's,  469;  Zeller, 
Acts  of  the  Apostles,  i.  100. 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  95 

records  whom  we  have  met,  and  one  whose 
polemic  purpose,  if  he  had  such  purpose,  would 
have  been  distinctly  served  by  citing  apostolic 
authority  for  his  doctrines,  had  he  known  them, 
who  yet  recognizes  only  one  Gospel,  and  that 
without  a  special  name.1 

Our  notice  of  this  hardy  innovator  is  not 
complete  until  we  add  that,  although  he  was 
denounced  as  a  blasphemer,  and  finally  cast  out 
of  the  special  church  which  he  had  joined,  yet 
his  doctrines  obtained  wide  currency,  and  his 
church  organization  proved  strong  and  effec- 
tive.2 In  due  course  of  time  his  reformatory 
movement,  often  exaggerated  and  compromised 
by  his  followers,  was  ruthlessly  crushed,  and 
the  Christian  Church  took  quite  a  different 
direction ;  but  we  see  it  here  while  fresh  and 
young,  convinced  that  its  renunciation  of  Ju- 
daism and  literal  fidelity  to  Christ's  maxims 
will  prevail,  and  that  the  future  of  Christianity 
will  be  its  own. 

Glancing  back  now  over  the  ground  we  have 
traversed,  we  find  ample  reason,  do  we  not, 
to  abide  by  the  first  impression  gained  from 
Papias.3  Though  our  survey  of  the  period, 

1  Note  T. 

2  Justin,  Apol.,  i.  26;  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  i.  i,  2;  iv.  5; 
Frees.,  30. 

8  Pp.  12,  19. 


96  PAPIAS 

from  the  scholar's  point  of  view,  has  been  but 
cursory  and  superficial,  yet  we  have  been  able 
to  take  account  of  all  writings 1  which  appeared 
before  the  latter  part  of  the  second  century, 
and  can  gain  from  them  a  trustworthy  story,  so 
far  as  it  goes,  of  the  condition  of  the  Christian 
Scriptures  at  this  early  date.  It  would  be  a 
great  mistake  to  suppose  that,  from  this  or  any 
other  retrospect  possible  to-day,  we  know  all 
about  the  matter.  These  very  authorities, 
when  most  critically  studied,  are  but  tantalizing 
witnesses,  as  the  Christian  Fathers,  unfortu- 
nately, had  other  interests  upon  their  minds 
than  the  preservation  of  ancient  records ;  and 
we  must  content  ourselves  with  such  dim  traces 
of  earlier  processes  as  diligent  scholars,  at  this 
long  range,  can  detect.  The  mere  absence  of 
mention  of  Gospels  or  Epistles  cannot  pass  as 
positive  proof  that  they  did  not  at  that  time 
exist.  They  might  have  been  quoted  loosely, 
they  might  have  existed  in  certain  localities 
long  before  they  were  known  in  others,  they 
might  have  existed  for  years  in  inchoate  form 
and  under  other  names,  or  no  names  at  all,  be- 
fore assuming  their  final  shape.  The  progress 
of  investigation  may  be  said  to  have  shown  less 
and  less  token  of  deliberate  or  fraudulent  man- 

i  See  Note  U. 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  97 

ufacture  of  ancient  records,  more  and  more 
evidence  that  the  private  or  primitive  docu- 
ments out  of  which  the  New  Testament  sprang 
date  back  in  some  form  or  other  close  upon 
apostolic  times.  The  stamp  of  high  antiquity 
is  discernible  through  all  their  changes.  But 
those  changes  few  now  attempt  to  deny ;  nor 
in  the  nature  of  the  case  could  they  well  be 
absent.  The  value  of  such  a  sketch  as  is  here 
attempted,  if  value  it  have,  lies  not  at  all  in 
weakening  the  foundations  of  a  structure  which, 
after  all  is  said,  must  have  its  foundations  in 
the  distant  past,  but  only  in  giving  some  notion 
of  the  early  stages  of  its  formation.  The  result 
may  seem  a  vague  one  at  best ;  yet  let  us  take 
hold  of  whatever  definite  facts  have  revealed 
themselves. 

Of  three  contemporary  writers  living  half 
through  the  century,  one  in  Asia  Minor,  two 
in  Rome,  one  is  acquainted  with  an  element- 
ary Mark,  and  a  Hebrew  collection  of  the 
Discourses  of  Jesus  under  Matthew's  name; 
a  second  uses  a  Gospel  closely  resembling  our 
Luke,  but  anonymous ;  a  third  cites  certain 
apostolic  Memoirs,  which  bear  no  name  with 
which  we  are  familiar,  but  which  recall  passages 
from  Matthew,  intermingled  with  several  from 
Luke.1  There  is  as  yet  no  mention  of  either  of 
1  Pp.  12,  14,  77,  92. 


98  PAPIAS 

the  Gospels  by  name,  nor  any  apparent  famil- 
iarity with  their  contents ;  no  use  of  them  as 
official  Scriptures,  and  no  knowledge  of  any 
Scriptures  but  the  Old  Testament,  except  as 
Marcion  is  endeavoring  to  supplant  the  Jewish 
Bible  by  his  mysterious  Gospel.  At  the  same 
time  we  find  several  Gospels  in  vogue  which  no 
longer  survive,  and  various  writings  classed  as 
sacred  which  are  now  considered  fabulous  or 
apocryphal.1  The  name  Gospel,  hardly  heard 
at  first,  is  slowly  coming  into  use,  and  certain 
works,  including  letters  from  living  bishops,  are 
publicly  read  on  Sunday  with  the  Old  Testa- 
ment Prophets. 

Meantime  the  material  of  all  our  three  ear- 
lier Gospels  is  already  there,  and  has  existed 
for  some  time,  no  doubt,  in  fluid  and  transient 
form,  awaiting  the  necessity,  we  might  almost 
say  the  motive,  to  single  out  the  few  from  their 
many  fellows,  give  them  final  shape,  and  attach 
to  them  official  sanction.2  Marcion's  aggressive 

1  See  pp.  9,  13  n,  43,  48,  56.    Comp.  Harnack,  Chron.,  683 ; 
Zahn,  Kanonsgesch.,  ii.  622. 

2  For  these  early  stages  of  growth  through  which  our  Gos- 
pels passed,  beginning  with  simple  collections  of  the  Say- 
ings of  Jesus,  see  Weizsacker,  Apos.  Age,  ii.  33-71.     Con- 
sult, also,  for  this  whole  subject,  Harnack,  Hist,  of  Dogma, 
ii.  38-66. 

The  recently  discovered    fragment    entitled  Sayings  of 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  99 

movement  is  enough  in  itself  to  show  that  this 
process  must  soon  begin.  Such  a  challenge 
could  not  remain  long  unnoticed,  —  unless  the 
earthly  mission  of  Jesus,  with  all  that  gave  it 
human  reality,  was  to  pass  as  an  ancient  myth. 
But  other  agitations,  hardly  less  significant  than 
his,  were  disturbing  the  churches,  and  if  there 
was  any  authoritative  word  to  be  spoken  against 
them,  some  recognized  Scripture  must  be  at 
hand  to  appeal  to. 

our  Lord  (A.6yia  'l-rjffov)  may  prove  to  throw  some  light 
upon  this  interesting  point,  as  it  seems  to  be  a  novel  speci- 
men of  certain  independent  collections  in  circulation  during 
the  second  century.  It  is  a  single  leaf  from  some  early  col- 
lection of  brief  sayings  of  Jesus,  and  was  found  two  years 
ago  among  the  excavations  of  the  ancient  Oxyrhynchus  in 
Egypt.  The  editors  consider  the  papyrus  itself  as  belonging 
probably  to  the  third  century,  and  the  collection  of  sayings 
to  about  A.  D.  140.  The  manuscript  contains  eight  Logia 
(see  Note  B  in  Appendix),  one  or  two  almost  undecipher- 
able ;  only  one  of  which  corresponds  exactly  with  any  pas- 
sage preserved  in  our  Gospels.  Among  the  experts  who 
have  already  examined  it,  the  original  editors,  Grenfell  and 
Hunt,  regard  it  as  part  of  an  independent  collection  of  the 
Lord's  sayings,  originating  early  in  the  second  century.  Har- 
nack,  on  the  other  hand,  is  quite  positive  that  it  is  an  excerpt 
from  the  Gospel  to  the  Egyptians,  a  Gospel  in  use  in  Egypt 
before  otfr  Gospels  were  known  there,  and  which  Harnack 
assigns  to  the  early  part  of  the  century.  See  Sayings  of  Our 
Lord,  Grenfell  and  Hunt,  London,  1897;  Die  Jungst  En- 
deckten  Spruche,  etc.,  A.  Harnack,  1 897 ;  also,  Theol.  Lite- 
ratur-Zeitung,  August  21,  1897;  Henrici. 


ioo  PAPIAS 

Whatever  may  have  been  the  cause  or  causes, 
certain  church  leaders  begin  at  this  time  to 
interest  themselves  in  theological  controversies, 
the  question  of  relative  worth  among  Gospels 
and  Epistles  begins  to  be  discussed,  and  the 
tests  of  age  or  apostolic  authorship  or  general 
use  begin  to  be  applied  to  all  documents.1  ,  No 
Council  meets  as  yet  to  decide  these  knotty 
points,  nor  does  any  assembly  of,  prelates  claim 
power  to  settle  them.  The  process  is  a  secret 
one,  to  be  detected  by  almost  invisible  traces. 
The  first  vague  hint  of  what  is  happening  comes 
from  a  half -forgotten  writing  of  about  180, 
which  is  found  to  have  spoken  of  the  "Old 
Testament."  But  Old  suggests  New.  Is  the 
author  using  the  word  only  in  a  general  sense, 
we  ask,  or  have  we  come  at  last  upon  the  first 
token  of  Christian  Scriptures,  —  of  a  veritable 
New  Testament  ? 2  About  the  same  time  ap- 
pears the  first  list  of  accepted  books,  as  if  the 
regulation  of  a  Christian  canon  had  actually 
been  taken  in  hand,  apparently  in  Rome.  It  is 
fragmentary,  and  speaks  in  anything  but  an 
authoritative  voice ;  but  it  evidently  embraced 

1  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  v.  24 ;  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  iv.  4,  5  ; 
Iren.,  H&r.,  iii.  4,  i ;  v.  20,  i. 

2  Melito,  Bishop  of  Sardis.    See  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  26, 
13.     Comp.  Harnack,  Hist.  Dog.,  ii.  43. 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  16* 

our  four  Gospels,  explaining  how  it  was  that 
a  fourth  happened  to  be  written  at  all,  and 
insisting  that  the  four  really  agree  in  their 
doctrines  notwithstanding  their  incongruities. 
It  included  also  the  Acts  of  all  the  Apostles ; 
Paul's  Epistles,  except  Hebrews  ;  Jude ;  two 
Epistles  of  John,  and  the  Revelation  of  John. 
Several  books  were  evidently  still  under  dis- 
cussion and  appear  as  if  on  the  margin  of  the 
canon,  half  within  and  half  without.  The 
"  Revelation  of  Peter,"  for  instance,  while  ad- 
mitted into  this  list,  is  not  allowed  to  be  read 
in  certain  churches ;  while  the  "  Shepherd  of 
Hermas  "  is  set  down  as  quite  worthy  to  be 
read  in  the  churches,  but  of  too  recent  origin  to 
be  placed  among  inspired  books.1  Plainly,  the 
ideas  of  what  constitutes  a  Christian  canon,  or 
should  determine  admission  to  one,  are  still  con- 
fused ;  but  a  beginning  has  fairly  been  made. 

Another  enterprise  at  this  time  is  of  interest, 
though  of  little  positive  result,  — -that  of  Tatian, 
who  tried  to  reduce  to  a  single  form  the  various 
Gospel  records  which  had  survived.  Whether 

1  The  so-called  Muratori  Fragment ;  a  manuscript  found 
by  Muratori  in  the  Ambrosian  Library  at  Milan  two  centu- 
ries ago.  The  manuscript  belongs  to  the  seventh  or  ninth 
century ;  the  original  document  probably  to  the  end  of  the 
second,  as  it  speaks  of  Pius  (about  140-155)  as  having  been 
"  recently  "  Bishop  of  Rome. 


*02  PAPIAS 

this  was  for  practical  convenience  simply,  or 
was  a  serious  effort  to  bring  order  out  of  con- 
fusion, we  cannot  tell,  as  the  work  exists  only 
in  late  and  doubtful  reconstructions  ;  but  there 
is  reason  to  think  that  he  made  special  use  of 
our  four  Gospels  for  his  purpose,  with  perhaps 
others  beside.1  Fortunately,  the  several  Gos- 
pels retained  their  individuality,  and  resisted  all 
such  endeavors  to  fuse  them  into  one. 

By  the  last  quarter  of  the  century  the  con- 
flicting practices  among  the  churches  led  to 
serious  attempts  to  close  the  door  against  fur- 
ther accessions  to  the  Gospel  narratives,  and 
establish  uniformity  in  the  use  of  the  Chris- 
tian Scriptures.  There  were  various  parties,  it 
seems,  under  various  names,  —  Montanist,  Mar- 
cionite,  Valentinian,  and  others,  —  some  using 
Luke  alone,  some  Matthew  only,  some  claiming 
that  John  was  heretical,  some  "boasting  to 
possess  more  Gospels  than  there  really  are."  2 

1  This  was  the  Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  written  probably 
about  175.     See  Note  V. 

For  a  learned  and  concise  account  of  this  and  all  the  other 
writings  mentioned  in  these  chapters,  see  the  English  trans' 
lation  of  Dr.  Gustav  Kriiger's  Hist,  of  Early  Christian  Lit- 
erature, 1897  ;  also,  Supernatural  Religion,  vols.  i.  and  ii., 
where  this  entire  literature  is  given  in  great  fullness  and 
detail. 

2  Iren.  iii.  n,  7,  9. 


TWO   LEARNED    DOCTORS  103 

Against  these  Irenaeus  lays  down  a  new  and 
inviolable  law,  that  four,  and  four  only,  is  the 
sacred  limit  never  to  be  overstepped.  His 
reasons  for  this  are  peculiar  ;  and  though  they 
cannot  be  called  critical,  they  are  certainly 
characteristic  of  the  age.  "It  is  not  possible 
that  the  Gospels  should  be  either  more  in  num- 
ber than  they  are,  nor  again  fewer.  For,  since 
there  are  four  zones  of  the  world  in  which  we 
live,  and  four  prevailing  winds,1  so  it  is  fitting 
that  the  church,  which  is  scattered  over  the 
earth,  the  Gospel  being  its  pillar  and  support 
and  the  very  spirit  of  its  life,  should  have  four 
pillars,  breathing  out  incorruption  on  every  side 
and  rekindling  the  life  of  men.  Therefore  it  is 
clear  why  the  Logos,  the  artificer  of  all  things, 
sitting  upon  the  cherubim  and  including  all 
things,  having  manifested  himself  to  men,  has 
given  us  the  Gospel  fourfold,  but  included  in 
one  spirit."  .  .  .  "These  things  being  so,  they 
are  vain  and  unlearned,  and  daring,  too,  who 
disregard  the  true  form  of  the  Gospel,  and 
introduce  either  more  than  have  been  indicated 
or  fewer."  2 

By  the  end  of  the  century,  all  the  writings 
included  in  the  present  New  Testament  seem 

1  Literally, «  catholic  winds,"  "  reWapa  «a0oAt/c&  n-verf/tara." 

2  Iren.,  H&r.,  iii.  11,  8;  iii.  11,  9. 


104  PAPIAS 

to  have  been  known  by  name,  though  by  no 
means  all  accepted  as  equally  valuable  or  trust- 
worthy. The  name  New  Testament,  though 
occasionally  in  use,  was  nowhere  in  full  vogue 
before  A.  D.  300 ;  nor  were  the  two  Scriptures 
brought  into  one  Bible  till  long  after  that.1  As 
late  as  325  the  historian  Eusebius  attempts, 
with  serious  purpose,  to  define  the  genuine  and 
accepted  Scriptures,  but  betrays,  in  the  very 
attempt,  the  variable  and  uncritical  grounds 
still  relied  upon  to  determine  these  disputed 
points.2 

So  at  last  the  Christian  Church  is  provided 
with  its  Scriptures.  It  is  not  strange  that  the 
process  was  so  slow,  if  slow  it  can  fairly  be 
called.  With  unformed  literary  habits  to  start 
with,  and  no  motive  whatever  for  gathering  or 
preserving  records  of  events  so  soon  to  culmi- 
nate in  the  final  destruction  of  the  universe, 
the  young  church  might  well  demand  four  or 
five  generations  to  complete  its  message  to  the 
world.  Nor  can  it  be  denied  that  our  earlier 
Gospels,  in  their  artless  and  fragmentary  char- 
acter, answer  singularly  to  the  above  theory  of 
their  origin.3  To  inveigh  against  these  fea- 

1  See  Julicher,  Einleit.  in  das  N.  Test.,  291-332. 

2  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  3 ;  iii.  25 ;  vii.  25. 
8  See  Note  W. 


TWO   LEARNED   DOCTORS  105 

tures,  or  feign  not  to  see  them,  or  try  to  better 
or  erase  them,  is  little  to  the  purpose.  Far 
wiser  is  it,  as  we  have  seen,  to  accept  them 
exactly  as  they  are,  and  avail  ourselves  of  the 
help  which  these  ancient  Fathers  offer.  It  is 
an  interesting  story,  which  can  hardly  be  im- 
proved upon ;  a  story  which,  if  read  in  the  right 
spirit,  discloses  plainly  the  peculiar  religious 
problems  they  had  in  hand,  and  the  entirely 
natural  and  unpremeditated  methods  which 
they  followed  in  meeting  them. 


CHAPTER  IV 

THE   MILLENNIAL   REIGN 

TURNING  now  from  these  scriptural  investi- 
gations, let  us  glance  for  a  moment  at  the  state 
of  religious  thought  at  the  period  we  are  consid- 
ering. What  themes  were  uppermost  in  men's 
minds  ?  we  ask.  What  were  bishops  thinking 
about  in  those  days,  or  what  had  they  mainly  at 
heart  ?  We  should  be  glad  of  a  fuller  answer 
to  these  questions  than  is  vouchsafed  us  in  the 
brief  extracts  from  Papias  which  remain;  yet 
the  little  which  we  find  has  its  significance,  and 
we  welcome  it  with  gratitude,  however  unex- 
pected the  picture  it  discloses. 

Says  the  historian  Eusebius,  after  giving  sev- 
eral miraculous  incidents  narrated  by  Papias : 
"This  same  writer  adds  other  matters  too  as 
having  come  to  him  from  unwritten  tradition, 
several  parables  and  precepts  of  the  Saviour,  and 
some  other  things  quite  too  mythical.  Among 
other  things  he  declares  that  after  the  resurrec- 
tion of  the  dead,  a  thousand  years  would  follow, 
during  which  Christ's  kingdom  would  exist  cor- 


THE   MILLENNIAL   REIGN  107 

poreally  upon  this  earth.  Which  ideas,"  adds 
Eusebius  apologetically,  "  I  think  were  assump- 
tions of  his  own,  misconceiving  the  apostolic  nar- 
ratives, and  not  comprehending  certain  things 
upon  their  pages  which  were  spoken  mystically. 
For  he  seems  to  have  been  a  man  of  extremely 
small  intelligence."1  On  other  occasions  he 
speaks  of  Papias  with  the  greatest  respect, 
calling  him  once  "a  man  most  learned  in 
all  matters,  and  well  acquainted  with  the  Scrip- 
tures ; " 2  but  doctrines  had  changed,  it  seems, 
in  two  hundred  years,  and  the  notion  of  an 
earthly  kingdom  had  fallen  under  suspicion 
when  Eusebius  wrote.  The  point  remains,  how- 
ever, that  this  bishop  of  the  second  century, 
whose  name  is  honored  throughout  Christen- 
dom, looked  forward  confidently  to  an  earthly 
reign  of  Christ  in  Jerusalem  for  one  thousand 
years. 

This  is  not  our  conception  of  the  future,  it 
must  be  confessed.  Yet  let  us  go  back  some 
eighteen  centuries,  place  ourselves  beside  Pa- 
pias for  a  moment,  and  see  if  the  notion  is  as 
unaccountable  on  his  part  as  at  first  sight  ap- 

1  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  39,  11-13. 

2  iii.  36,  2.     This  passage  is  missing  in  some  manuscripts, 
and  is  regarded  by  many  as  an  interpolation ;  but  it  is  in  any 
case  an  early  estimate  of  the  man,  and  therefore  worth  pre- 
serving.    Comp.,  also,  ii.  15,  2. 


io8  PAPIAS 

pears.  The  Christian  Church,  we  must  remem- 
ber, had  hardly  passed  as  yet  out  of  the  atmo- 
sphere of  Jewish  belief;  out  of  the  grasp  of 
ideas,  I  mean,  which  viewed  the  present  world 
as  the  scene  of  both  earthly  and  heavenly  func- 
tions, and  the  fit  stage  even  for  the  awful  events 
of  the  Day  of  Judgment.  In  the  splendid  sym- 
bolism of  the  Prophets  things  invisible  and  visi- 
ble, imagination  and  reality,  became  one.  "  Blow 
ye  the  trumpet  in  Zion,"  says  Joel,  "  sound  an 
alarm  in  my  holy  mountain  ;  .  .  .  for  the  day  of 
the  Lord  cometh,  for  it  is  nigh  at  hand."  "And 
it  shall  come  to  pass  .  .  .  that  I  will  pour  out 
my  spirit  upon  all  flesh  ;  and  your  sons  and  your 
daughters  shall  prophesy,  your  old  men  shall 
dream  dreams,  and  your  young  men  shall  see 
visions."  "So  shall  ye  know  that  I  am  the 
Lord  your  God  dwelling  in  Zion."  *  "  Behold," 
says  Isaiah,  "  the  day  of  the  Lord  cometh,  cruel 
both  with  wrath  and  fierce  anger,  to  lay  the 
land  desolate."  "  I  will  shake  the  heavens,  and 
the  earth  shall  remove  out  of  her  place,  in  the 
wrath  of  the  Lord  of  hosts,  and  in  the  day  of 
his  fierce  anger."  Out  of  this  terror  and  woe 
Israel  alone  shall  be  saved.  "Israel  shall  be 
saved  in  the  Lord  with  an  everlasting  salvation  : 
ye  shall  not  be  ashamed  nor  confounded  world 

i  Joelii.  1-3,  28  j  iii.  17. 


THE    MILLENNIAL   REIGN  109 

without  end."  In  those  days  "the  wolf  shall 
dwell  with  the  lamb,  and  the  leopard  shall  lie 
down  with  the  kid ;  and  the  calf  and  the  young 
lion  and  the  fatling  together,  and  a  little  child 
shall  lead  them."  "  For,  behold,  I  create  new 
heavens  and  a  new  earth :  and  the  former 
shall  not  be  remembered,  nor  come  into  mind." 
"  They  shall  not  hurt  nor  destroy  in  all  my  holy 
mountain,  saith  the  Lord."  1  When  the  nation 
returned  from  captivity,  they  came  to  a  land 
where  they  were  to  reign  forever,  under  a  prince 
of  the  house  of  David.  "  And  they  shall  dwell 
in  the  land  that  I  have  given  unto  Jacob  my 
servant,  wherein  your  fathers  have  dwelt ;  and 
they  shall  dwell  therein,  even  they,  and  their 
children,  and  their  children's  children  for  ever : 
and  my  servant  David  shall  be  their  prince  for 
ever."2 

As  time  went  on,  and  troubles  multiplied  over 
Israel,  this  reign  of  Jehovah  among  his  people 
took  more  definite  form.  It  was  to  introduce  a 
new  aeon  into  history ;  the  "  coming  age,"  the 
"regeneration." 3  Jewish  thoughts  fixed  them- 
selves on  some  great  deliverer.  A  Messiah 
should  appear,  to  reign  upon  the  earth  over  all 

1  Is.  xiii.  9,  13;  xlv.  17;  xi.  6;  Ixv.  17,  25. 

2  Ezek.  xxxvii.  25 ;  Jer.  xxiv.  6. 

8  Matt.  xii.  32 ;  Mark  iv.  19;  Luke  xvi.  8;  2  Tim.  iv.  10. 


no  PAPIAS 

the  righteous.1  This  reign  would  be  of  vast 
length ;  four  hundred  years,  said  some,  as  the 
tribes  wandered  four  hundred  years  in  the  wil- 
derness ;  a  thousand  years,  said  others.  "  Is  not 
one  day  with  the  Lord  as  a  thousand  years,  and 
a  thousand  years  as  one  day  ?  "  2  During  the 
century  preceding  the  birth  of  Jesus  this  mes- 
sianic reign  of  a  thousand  years  had  gained 
firm  hold  of  the  Jewish  imagination,  and  the 
final  judgment  had  been  thrust  into  the  far-off 
background,  till  that  happy  period  had  passed.3 

1  At  first  the  Jews  seem  to  have  thought  of  God  alone 
as  ruler  in  the  restored  kingdom.     The  idea  of  a  Messiah 
appears  vaguely  in  Daniel  vii.  13,  22,  in  a  form  which  had 
much  influence  upon  the  Jewish  imagination ;  but  more  defi- 
nitely in  the  Sibylline  Oracles  of  about  the  same  period, 
and  the  Book  of  Enoch.     (The  Sibyllines  and  Enoch  belong 
probably,  in  their  Jewish  form,  to  the  first  or  second  century 
before  Christ ;  afterwards  they  were  both  much  added  to  by 
Christian  writers.)     See  Sibyll.  iii.  49,  766,  767 ;  Enoch  10, 
n,  90-100;  also,  Psalms  of  Solomon  xvii.  4,  5;  i  Mace. iv. 
46;  xiv.  41. 

2  2  Ezra  vii.  28.     The  idea  of  a  thousand  years  can  be 
traced  back,  more  or  less  distinctly,  to  Ps.  xc.  4.     If  Jeho- 
vah had  taken  six  days  (/.  e.,  six  thousand  years)  for  the 
creation  and  continuance  of  the   existing  universe,  which 
was  nearing  its  end,  there  must  follow  another  thousand 
years  of  rest  and  happiness.      (Epis.  Barnabas  xv. ;   Iren., 
ff<zr.,  v.  23,  2;  v.  28,  3.) 

8  Weber,  System  d.  Altsynag.  Palas.  Theologie,  334,  372 ; 
Schiirer,  Hist,  of  Jewish  People  in  Time  of  Christ,  Div.  II. 


THE   MILLENNIAL  REIGN  in 

These  Jewish  prophecies,  as  we  have  seen, 
were  the  unquestioned  authorities  to  which  the 
earlier  generations  of  Christians  naturally  turned 
for  proof  or  confirmation  of  their  faith.  But 
even  when  Christian  records  appeared  at  last  to 
take  their  place  beside  the  ancient  Scriptures, 
were  there  not  intimations  of  the  same  kind  there 
also  ?  However  skillfully  modern  exegesis  may 
deal  with  the  New  Testament,  must  we  not  all 
confess  to  the  presence  of  certain  verses  there 
which  sadly  bewilder  us,  and  which  we  would 
gladly  eliminate  from  the  sacred  text?  How 
are  we  to  understand  these  words :  "  Verily  I 
say  unto  you,  There  be  some  standing  here, 
which  shall  not  taste  of  death,  till  they  see  the 
Son  of  man  coming  in  his  kingdom."1  Or 
these:  "Then  came  unto  him  the  mother  of 
Zebedee's  children  with  her  sons,  worshipping 
him,  and  desiring  a  certain  thing  of  him.  And 
he  said  unto  her,  What  wilt  thou  ?  She  saith 
unto  him,  Grant  that  these  my  two  sons  may 
sit,  the  one  on  thy  right  hand,  and  the  other  on 
the  left,  in  thy  kingdom.  And  Jesus  answered 

vol.  ii.  137,  etc.;  Liicke,  Offenbarung,  i.  40-342;  Hausrath, 
Time  of  Jesus,  i.  191-204;  C.  H.  Toy,  Judaism  and  Chris- 
tianity,  52-68,  372-414;  J.  H.  Allen,  Early  Christianity, 
ch.  i. ;  J.  Drummond,  Jewish  Messiah. 
1  Matt.  xvi.  28 ;  Mark  xiv.  62. 


112  PAPIAS 

and  said  ...  To  sit  on  my  right  hand,  and  on 
my  left,  is  not  mine  to  give,  but  it  shall  be  given 
to  them  for  whom  it  is  prepared  of  my  Father." * 
Or,  again :  "  Then  answered  Peter  and  said  unto 
him,  Behold  we  have  forsaken  all,  and  followed 
thee ;  what  shall  we  have  therefore  ?  And  Jesus 
said  unto  them,  Verily  I  say  unto  you,  That  ye 
which  have  followed  me,  in  the  regeneration 
when  the  Son  of  man  shall  sit  in  the  throne  of 
his  glory,  ye  also  shall  sit  upon  twelve  thrones, 
judging  the  twelve  tribes  of  Israel."2  Or  how 
interpret  what  Jesus  says  to  his  disciples  at  the 
Last  Supper :  "  I  appoint  unto  you  a  kingdom, 
as  my  Father  hath  appointed  unto  me ;  that  ye 
may  eat  and  drink  at  my  table  in  my  kingdom, 
and  sit  on  thrones  judging  the  twelve  tribes  of 
Israel."  3 

Whatever  impression  we  may  receive  from 
these  words,  or  however  easy  it  may  be  in  these 
days  to  reduce  them  to  spiritual  terms,  and 
make  them  still  pass  current,  there  can  be  no 
doubt  how  the  immediate  disciples  of  Jesus 
understood  them.  What  a  startling  confession 
lies  in  these  words  :  "  We  trusted  that  it  had 
been  he  which  should  have  redeemed  Israel."  4 
Still  more  incomprehensible  the  question  put 

1  Matt.  xx.  20-23.  2  Matt.  xix.  27,  28. 

8  Luke  xxii.  29,  30.          *  Luke  xxiv.  21. 


THE  MILLENNIAL  REIGN  113 

to  the  risen  Lord  :  "  Lord,  wilt  thou  at  this 
time  restore  again  the  kingdom  to  Israel  ? "  l 
Not  even  the  death  and  final  ascension  of  the 
Lord  could  quench  this  hope  of  the  visible 
messianic  kingdom.  If  he  was  taken  up  into 
heaven  just  when  his  disciples  were  awaiting 
his  final  triumph,  it  was  only  to  return  to  the 
earth,  and  establish  there  his  throne.  Said 
Peter  to  the  crowds  which  thronged  around  him 
in  the  Temple :  "  He  shall  send  Jesus  Christ, 
which  before  was  preached  unto  you :  whom 
the  heaven  must  receive  until  the  times  of  res- 
titution of  all  things,  which  God  hath  spoken 
by  the  mouth  of  all  his  holy  prophets  since  the 
world  began."  2  So  far  as  the  New  Testament 
history  carries  us,  the  moment  did  not  come 
when  the  Apostles  of  Jesus  renounced  this 
long-inherited  expectation.  "Therefore  judge 
nothing  before  the  time,"  says  Paul,  "  until  the 
Lord  come,  who  both  will  bring  to  light  the 
hidden  things  of  darkness,  and  will  make  mani- 
fest the  counsels  of  hearts."3  "For  as  often 
as  ye  eat  this  bread,  and  drink  this  cup,  ye  do 
show  the  Lord's  death  till  he  come."  4  "  Behold, 
I  show  you  a  mystery ;  We  shall  not  all  sleep, 
but  we  shall  all  be  changed,  in  a  moment,  in  the 

l  Acts  i.  6.  2  Acts  iii.  20,  21 ;  Mark  xvi.  19. 

8  i  Cor.  iv.  5.  *  xi.  26. 


ii4  PAPIAS 

twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the  last  trump  :  for  the 
trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the  dead  shall  be 
raised  incorruptible,  and  we  shall  be  changed."1 
"  For  this  we  say  unto  you  by  the  word  of  the 
Lord,  that  we  which  are  alive  and  remain 
unto  the  coming  of  the  Lord  shall  not  prevent 
them  which  are  asleep.  For  the  Lord  himself 
shall  descend  from  heaven  with  a  shout,  with 
the  voice  of  the  archangel,  and  with  the  trump 
of  God  :  and  the  dead  in  Christ  shall  rise  first : 
then  we  which  are  alive  and  remain  shall  be 
caught  up  together  with  them  in  the  clouds,  to 
meet  the  Lord  in  the  air :  and  so  shall  we  be 
ever  with  the  Lord."  2  In  the  latter  days  came 
a  certain  disenchantment,  as  the  first  expecta- 
tion remained  so  long  unfulfilled,  but  there  was 
no  surrender  of  the  hope  itself  :  "  There  shall 
come  in  the  last  days  scoffers,  walking  after 
their  own  lusts,  and  saying,  Where  is  the 
promise  of  his  coming  ?  for  since  the  fathers 
fell  asleep,  all  things  continue  as  they  were 
from  the  beginning  of  the  creation.  .  .  .  But  the 
heavens  and  the  earth,  which  are  now,  by  the 
same  word  are  kept  in  store,  reserved  unto 
fire  against  the  day  of  judgment  and  perdition 
of  ungodly  men.  But,  beloved,  be  not  ignorant 
of  this  one  thing,  that  one  day  is  with  the  Lord 
1  i  Cor.  xv.  51,  52.  2  i  Thess.  iv.  15-17. 


THE   MILLENNIAL  REIGN  115 

as  a  thousand  years,  and  a  thousand  years  as 
one  day.  .  .  .  But  the  day  of  the  Lord  will 
come  as  a  thief  in  the  night ;  in  the  which  the 
heavens  shall  pass  away  with  a  great  noise,  and 
the  elements  shall  melt  with  fervent  heat,  the 
earth  also  and  the  works  that  are  therein  shall 
be  burned  up.  .  .  .  Nevertheless  we,  according 
to  his  promise,  look  for  new  heavens  and  a  new 
earth."  * 

How  profoundly  this  dream  had  affected  the 
early  Christian  imagination  is  shown  by  the 
strange  speculations  current  for  many  genera- 
tions over  the  resurrection  of  the  body.  Paul's 
Epistles,  as  we  remember,  hint  at  a  controversy 
on  this  point  which  evidently  had  a  more  serious 
and  personal  import  for  his  readers  than  it  is 
easy  for  us  to  conceive.  He  had  assured  his 
followers  from  the  first,  as  we  have  just  seen, 
that  those  still  living  when  the  end  came, 
though  entering  at  once  upon  the  new  kingdom, 
would  yet  have  no  precedence  or  advantage 
over  those  who  had  died  in  the  mean  time.2 
Although  already  in  their  graves,  these  would 
yet  be  received  with  the  rest.  But  in  what 
bodies  would  they  come  ?  And  in  what  form 
would  the  living  themselves  enter  into  the 
Messiah's  realm  ?  Would  they  retain  their  for- 

i  2  Peter  111.3-13.  2  t  Thess.lv.  15. 


ii6  PAPIAS 

mer  bodies,  or  be  clothed  with  new?  "But 
some  man  will  say,  How  are  the  dead  raised 
up  ?  and  with  what  body  do  they  come  ?  Thou 
fool,  that  which  thou  sowest  is  not  quickened, 
except  it  die :  and  that  which  thou  sowest,  thou 
sowest  not  that  body  that  shall  be,  but  bare 
grain,  it  may  chance  of  wheat,  or  of  some  other 
grain  :  but  God  giveth  it  a  body  as  it  hath 
pleased  him,  and  to  every  seed  his  own  body. 
...  So  also  is  the  resurrection  of  the  dead. 
It  is  sown  in  corruption ;  it  is  raised  in  incor- 
ruption.  ...  It  is  sown  a  natural  body ;  it  is 
raised  a  spiritual  body."  1 

The  question  of  the  spiritual  body  and  its 
relation  to  the  actual  body  long  remained  a 
grave  one.  For  more  than  a  century,  we  dis- 
cover as  we  read  the  discussions  of  the  future 
life,  resurrection  always  means  resurrection  of 
the  flesh.  The  controversy  of  that  period 
was  never  with  those  who  denied  the  future 
or  questioned  immortality;  it  was  with  those 
who  doubted  bodily  resurrection.  Apart  from 
that  condition,  the  future  seems  to  have  had 
no  meaning  to  the  Christian  believer.  "  If  you 
have  fallen  in  with  any  who  are  called  Chris- 
tians," said  Justin  Martyr,  a  contemporary  of 
Papias,  "who  yet  say  that  there  is  no  resur- 
i  i  Cor.  xv.  35-38,  42, 44. 


THE   MILLENNIAL  REIGN  117 

rection  of  the  dead,  but  that  their  souls  are 
taken  up  into  heaven  immediately  upon  death, 
do  not  suppose  that  they  are  Christians." l 
"If  the  Saviour  proclaimed  salvation  to  the 
soul  alone,  what  new  thing  did  he  bring  us, 
beyond  what  was  taught  by  Pythagoras  and 
Plato,  and  all  their  band  ?  "  2  Irenaeus,  writing 
a  generation  later,  is  still  greatly  disturbed  by 
the  heretics  who  claim  that  the  spirit  rises  to 
heaven  at  the  moment  of  death.  "  Whatsoever 
all  the  heretics  with  the  greatest  solemnity  may 
have  asserted,  they  come  to  this  at  last ;  they 
blaspheme  the  Creator,  and  deny  the  salvation 
of  the  image  of  God,  which  the  flesh  certainly 
is."  3  "  They  deny  the  power  of  God, —  who  fix 
their  thought  upon  the  infirmity  of  the  flesh  ; 
and  forget  his  strength  who  raises  it  from  the 
dead."  4  "  For  the  heretics,  despising  the  handi- 
work of  God,  and  not  allowing  the  salvation  of 
their  flesh,  claim  that  immediately  upon  their 
death  they  shall  pass  beyond  the  heavens."6 
As  with  Christ,  who  appeared  in  bodily  form 
after  the  resurrection,  so  will  it  be  with  the 
Christian.  "  If  the  Lord  tarried  until  the  third 
day  in  the  lower  parts  of  the  earth,6  afterwards 

1  Trypho,  80. 

2  De  Resurrectione,  10.     Attributed  to  Justin. 
8  Iren.,  Har.,  iv.  Preface,  4. 

4  v.  3,  2.  5  v.  31,  i.  6  Eph.  iv.  9. 


n8  PAPIAS 

rising  in  the  flesh,  —  how  must  they  not  be  put 
to  confusion  who  declare  that  the  '  lower  parts ' 
mean  this  earth  of  ours,  but  that  only  their 
inner  man,  leaving  here  the  body,  ascends  into 
the  supercelestial  place."  1 

If  the  soul  alone  is  saved,  says  Tertullian,  a 
little  later,  man  is  only  half  saved.  "He  is 
saved  only  so  far  as  the  soul  is  concerned,  but 
lost  as  to  the  flesh,  if  the  flesh  does  not  rise."  2 
Does  not  Paul  say,  "  We  must  all  appear  before 
the  judgment  seat  of  Christ ;  that  every  one 
may  receive  the  things  done  in  his  body  "  ?  But 
"it  will  be  impossible  to  be  judged  for  things 
done  in  the  body,  if  there  is  no  body." 3  No 
aspect  of  this  question  is  too  trivial  or  grotesque 
to  be  solemnly  discussed,  and  all  objections  met. 
Tertullian  quotes  Paul  triumphantly  :  "  In  this 
we  groan,  earnestly  desiring  to  be  clothed  upon 
with  our  house  which  is  from  heaven."  But 
how  can  we  be  clothed  upon,  he  asks,  unless 
there  be  a  body  to  be  clothed  ?  "  For  being 
found  naked,  the  flesh  having  been  laid  aside  or 
worn  out,  the  dead  recover  it  again,  so  that 
being  reclothed  in  flesh  they  may  then  be 
clothed  upon  in  immortality  ;  for  one  cannot  be 
clothed  upon,  unless  already  clothed."  4  If  the 

1  Iren.,  H<zr.,  v.  31,  2.  2  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  i.  24. 

8  2  Cor.  v.  10 ;  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  v.  12. 
*  2  Cor.  v.  2 ;  Tertull.,  Res.  Car.,  42. 


THE   MILLENNIAL  REIGN  119 

unbeliever  asked  how  it  was  possible  to  gather 
together  again  the  scattered  remains  of  the  de- 
parted, once  dissolved  in  death,  the  Christian 
apologist  answered  : "  Although  to  men  it  may 
appear  quite  impossible  that  what  has  passed 
into  the  universe  should  be  separable  from  it 
again,  yet  it  is  not  possible  for  God  to  be  igno- 
rant either  of  the  limbs  themselves,  or  of  the 
particles  of  which  they  consist,  or  whither  each 
of  the  dissolved  particles  passes,  or  what  ele- 
ment has  received  that  which  is  dissolved  and 
found  other  affinities."1  Philosophers  might 
believe  in  the  natural  immortality  of  the  soul ; 
but  not  so  the  Christian.  Oddly  enough,  the 
advocates  of  transmigration  were  considered  as 
coming  nearer  the  true  Christian  doctrine  than 
believers  in  spiritual  immortality.  They  at  least 
showed  due  respect  to  the  body.  "  The  Pytha- 
goreans and  Platonists  affirm  in  a  manner  quite 
approaching  our  own  that  the  soul  returns  into 
the  body ;  though  not  indeed  into  the  same,  nor 
always  into  human  bodies  ;  Homer  for  instance 
being  supposed  to  have  passed  into  a  peacock. 
.  .  .  They  at  least  knocked  at  the  door  of  truth, 
although  they  entered  not."  2  It  was  held  that 

1  Athenagoras,  J?es.,  2. 

2  Tertull.,  Res.  Car.,  i.     Pulsata  saltern,  licet  non  adita 
veritate. 


120  PAPIAS 

the  soul  can  have  no  distinct  individuality, 
except  as  attained  through  the  body ;  can  have 
neither  happiness  nor  misery,  reward  nor  pun- 
ishment. "  Man  cannot  be  said  to  exist  when 
the  body  is  dissolved,  and  scattered  abroad,  even 
though  the  soul  continue  by  itself ;  it  is  abso- 
lutely necessary  that  the  end  of  man's  being 
should  be  reached  in  a  reconstitution  of  the 
two,  body  and  soul." * 

I  do  not  mean  that  this  thought  is  put  always 
in  its  grossest  form.  One  writer  of  the  period 
at  least  gives  it  as  attractive  a  guise  as  such  a 
doctrine  is  capable  of :  "  Do  you  think  that  if 
anything  is  withdrawn  from  our  feeble  eyes,  it 
perishes  to  God?  Every  body,  whether  dried 
up  into  dust,  or  dissolved  into  moisture,  or  com- 
pressed into  ashes,  or  attenuated  into  smoke,  is 
withdrawn  from  us,  but  it  is  reserved  for  God 
in  the  custody  of  the  elements."  2  Indeed,  long 
before  this  epoch,  under  Platonic  influence  no 
doubt,  the  great  problem  had  been  touched  in 
far  nobler  mood,  and  in  words  which  must  have 
been  familiar  in  some  Christian  circles.  "  For 
the  corruptible  body  presseth  down  the  soul, 
and  the  earthy  tabernacle  weigheth  down  the 
mind  that  museth  upon  many  things."  "God 
created  man  to  be  immortal,  and  made  him  to 

1  Athenagoras,  Res.,  25.      2  Minucius  Felix,  Octav.,  34. 


THE   MILLENNIAL  REIGN  121 

be  an  image  of  his  own  being." J  But  this,  as 
we  see,  was  not  the  aspect  of  the  theme  which 
prevailed  in  the  early  church.  In  the  next  cen- 
tury Origen  handles  it  with  freer  hand  than  any 
before ;  yet  even  he  recognizes  no  distinction 
between  the  resurrection  of  the  dead  and  the 
resurrection  of  the  body.  Those  who  deny  the 
one  deny  the  other.  2 

Such  being  the  prevailing  views,  it  is  no 
longer  strange  that  Papias  should  believe  in  a 
messianic  reign  upon  earth.  Indeed,  he  had 
grounds  for  his  faith  quite  independent  of  the 
written  Scriptures.  The  oral  traditions,  on 
which  he  so  much  relied,  had  something  to  tell 
him  on  this  point  also.  Among  them  was  a 
conversation  of  Jesus  with  his  disciples,  which 
he  narrates  in  the  Fourth  Book  of  his  Interpre- 
tations or  Commentaries,  as  follows  :  "  The 
presbyters  who  had  seen  John,  the  disciple  of 
the  Lord,  declared  that  they  had  heard  him  tell 
how  the  Lord  described  these  times,  saying ; 
The  days  will  come  when  vines  shall  grow,  each 
one  bearing  ten  thousand  branches,  and  upon 
each  branch  ten  thousand  twigs,  and  upon  each 
one  of  the  twigs  ten  thousand  shoots,  and  upon 
every  shoot  ten  thousand  bunches,  and  upon 

1  Wis.  Sol.  ix.  15;  ii.  23.     See  Toy's  Judaism,  386-388. 

2  Prin.,  ii.  10,  i  and  2.  See,  also,  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  iv.  26. 


122  PAPIAS 

every  bunch  ten  thousand  grapes,  and  each  grape 
when  pressed  shall  yield  twenty-five  metres 
of  wine.  And  when  one  of  the  saints  takes 
hold  of  a  cluster,  another  shall  cry  out,  '  I  am  a 
better  cluster,  take  me;  bless  the  Lord  through 
me.'  So,  too,  the  grain  of  wheat  shall  produce 
ten  thousand  ears,  and  every  ear  shall  bear  ten 
thousand  grains,  and  every  grain  shall  yield 
ten  pounds  of  fine  flour,  clear  and  pure ;  and 
all  the  other  fruit  trees  and  seeds  and  herbs 
shall  bear  fruit  in  similar  proportions ;  and  all 
animals  feeding  on  the  fruits  of  the  earth  shall 
become  peaceable  and  in  accord  one  with  the 
other,  being  subject  to  man  in  all  subjection." 
This,  according  to  Papias,  was  spoken  by  Jesus 
in  the  presence  of  the  Twelve,  of  whom  Judas 
alone  proved  skeptical.  "  But  Judas  the  traitor 
would  not  believe,  but  asked  how  such  fruit- 
fulness  could  be  created  by  the  Lord  ;  and  the 
Lord  said  ;  They  shall  see  who  enter  upon  that 
kingdom."  l 

This  extract  would  certainly  not  be  worth 
quoting  on  its  own  account;  nor,  it  must  be 
confessed,  does  it  increase  our  esteem  for  the 

1  Iren.,  H<zr.,  v.  33,  3 ;  v.  33,  4.  Comp.  Apocalypse  of 
Baruch  xxix.  5.  There  is  an  obvious  resemblance  between 
these  passages,  pointing  apparently  to  some  common  source 
of  written  or  more  probably  oral  tradition. 


THE   MILLENNIAL   REIGN  123 

venerable  Fathers,  one  of  whom  could  solemnly 
report  such  tales,  as  "  credible  to  all  believers," 
and  the  other  repeat  them  with  full  approval. 
But  whatever  lets  us  into  the  hidden  thoughts 
of  this  remote  period  is  of  distinct  value ;  and 
nothing  could  help  us  better  to  understand  the 
crude  and  conflicting  beliefs  out  of  which  our 
Christian  faith  was  born,  or  the  heterogeneous 
traditions  from  which  by  slow  processes  our 
four  Gospels  had  to  be  sifted,  than  this  extraor- 
dinary prophecy,  so  long  credited  without  dis- 
may to  Jesus  himself. 

A  still  higher  warrant  for  his  belief,  probably 
well  known  to  Papias,1  was  found  in  the  widely 
circulated  Revelation  of  St.  John,  now  standing 
at  the  close  of  the  New  Testament.  In  this 
book,  which  seems  like  an  echo  of  the  ancient 
Jewish  Prophets,  and  which,  apart  from  its 
preface  and  occasional  references  to  "the 
Lamb,"  seems  as  purely  Jewish  as  those  Pro- 
phets themselves,  the  earlier  conception  of  the 
Messiah's  coming  has  taken  a  more  definite 
form.  Let  us  glance  at  the  main  features  of 

1  The  Book  of  Revelation  was  unquestionably  known  at 
this  time,  as  passages  like  Trypho,  81,  prove.  We  may 
naturally  infer  that  Papias  was  familiar  with  it,  though 
Eusebius  does  not  mention  the  fact.  He  merely  says,  on 
his  own  account,  that  Revelation  was  probably  written  by 
the  Presbyter  John.  (Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  39,  6.) 


I24  PAPIAS 

this  singular  Apocalypse.  The  last  days  are 
drawing  nigh,  as  the  writer  believes,1  and  their 
awful  events  are  revealed  to  him  in  vision. 
When  seal  after  seal  has  been  broken,  and  woe 
has  followed  woe,  and  the  seven  angels  have 
brought  upon  the  earth  their  seven  plagues,  and 
Babylon,  the  Mother  of  all  Abominations,  has 
fallen,  the  Messiah  comes  forth  through  the 
opening  skies,  followed  by  the  armies  of  heaven, 
to  overthrow  the  kings  of  the  earth,  and  exter- 
minate all  his  foes ;  the  old  serpent  Satan  is 
bound  and  cast  into  the  bottomless  pit ;  thrones 
appear,  judgment  begins,  and  they  who  have 
borne  witness  to  Jesus  rise  from  their  graves, 
to  live  and  reign  with  Christ  a  thousand  years.2 
The  elect  are  few ;  on  these  death  hath  no  more 
power;  they  are  priests  of  God  and  Christ.3 
This  is  the  first  resurrection.  When  the  thou- 
sand years  have  passed,  Satan  is  loosed,  the 
enemies  of  Israel  are  gathered,  like  the  sands 
of  the  sea,  for  a  last  assault  upon  the  beloved 
city  Jerusalem ;  fire  comes  down  from  heaven 
to  destroy  them  ;  Satan  is  cast  once  for  all  into 
the  lake  of  fire  and  brimstone,  to  be  tormented 
day  and  night  forever  and  ever.  The  second 
resurrection  follows.  A  great  white  throne 
appears,  and  we  behold  the  last  Judgment. 

1  Rev.  i.  3.  a  xix.  11-21 ;  xx.  1-4.  8  xx.  5,  6. 


THE  MILLENNIAL  REIGN  125 

"  And  I  saw  a  great  white  throne,  and  him  that 
sat  on  it,  from  whose  face  the  earth  and  heaven 
fled  away ;  and  there  was  found  no  place  for 
them.  .  .  .  And  the  sea  gave  up  the  dead 
which  were  in  it ;  and  death  and  hell  delivered 
up  the  dead  which  were  in  them."  "  And  I  saw 
the  dead,  small  and  great,  stand  before  God ; 
and  the  books  were  opened  .  .  .  and  the  dead 
were  judged  out  of  those  things  which  were 
written  in  the  books,  according  to  their  works." 
"  And  whosoever  was  not  found  written  in  the 
book  of  life  was  cast  into  the  lake  of  fire." 
"  And  death  and  hell  were  cast  into  the  lake  of 
fire.  This  is  the  second  death."1  Death  has 
been  destroyed,  and  eternal  life  begins.  A  new 
heaven  and  a  new  earth  take  the  place  of  the 
first  heaven  and  the  first  earth.  "  And  I  saw  a 
new  heaven  and  a  new  earth  :  for  the  first 
heaven  and  the  first  earth  were  passed  away ; 
and  there  was  no  more  sea.  And  I  John  saw 
the  holy  city,  new  Jerusalem,  coming  down  from 
God  out  of  heaven,  prepared  as  a  bride  adorned 
for  her  husband.  And  I  heard  a  great  voice 
out  of  heaven  saying,  Behold,  the  tabernacle 
of  God  is  with  men,  and  he  will  dwell  with  them, 
and  they  shall  be  his  people,  and  God  himself 
shall  be  with  them,  and  be  their  God."  And 
1  Rev.  xx.  7-15. 


126  PAPIAS 

the  city  "had  a  wall  great  and  high,  and  had 
twelve  gates,  .  .  .  and  names  written  thereon, 
which  are  the  names  of  the  twelve  tribes  of  the 
children  of  Israel.  .  .  .  And  I  saw  no  temple 
therein :  for  the  Lord  God  Almighty  and  the 
Lamb  are  the  temple  of  it.  ...  And  the  na- 
tions .  .  .  shall  walk  in  the  light  of  it :  and  the 
kings  of  the  earth  do  bring  their  glory  and 
honor  into  it.  ...  In  the  midst  of  the  street 
of  it,  and  on  either  side  of  the  river,  was  there 
the  tree  of  life,  which  bare  twelve  manner  of 
fruits,  and  yielded  her  fruit  every  month  :  and 
the  leaves  of  the  tree  were  for  the  healing  of 
the  nations.  And  there  shall  be  no  more  curse  : 
but  the  throne  of  God  and  of  the  Lamb  shall 
be  in  it;  and  his  servants  shall  serve  him."1 
The  splendid  vision  ends  where  it  began :  on 
earth  and  in  Jerusalem. 

This  singular  book  has  always  seemed 
strangely  out  of  place  in  a  collection  of  Chris- 
tian writings.  A  vision  which  concerns  itself 
almost  exclusively  with  Jerusalem,  its  temple,  its 
elders,  its  altars,  and  its  worshipers,2  which  re- 
flects throughout  the  Jewish  hatred  of  Rome  and 
its  rulers,3  which  reserves  its  bitterest  scorn  for 

1  Rev.  xxi. ;  xxii.  1-3.  2  iii.  12;  iv.  4;  vi.  9;  xi.  1-4. 

8  xiii.  i,  14-18;  xiv.  8;  xvi.  2,  19;  xvii.  1-5,  9-12;  xviii. 
2-19.  Comp.  Mommsen,  Provinces  of  the  Roman  Empire, 
ii.  214  n. 


THE   MILLENNIAL  REIGN  127 

the  "synagogues  of  Satan,"  those  who,  while 
claiming  to  be  Jews,  are  not  worthy  of  the 
name,1  and  which  has  constantly  before  its  eyes 
Mount  Zion  and  the  Twelve  Tribes  of  Israel,2 
would  seem  to  bear  its  Jewish  stamp  upon  its 
face.  How  singular  the  moment  in  Christian 
history  when  the  church  could  claim  such  a 
writing  as  its  own,  without  a  thought  of  incon- 
gruity !  One  recent  critic  declares  it  unequivo- 
cally a  Jewish  prophecy,  written  during  the  hor- 
rors of  the  Roman  siege,  then  translated  and 
applied  to  Christian  uses  during  the  persecu- 
tions under  Domitian.3  Other  commentators, 
following  this  idea,  point  out  not  two,  but  three 
or  four  different  authors,  Jewish  and  Christian.4 
And  indeed  there  seems  little  reason  to  doubt 
that  the  perplexities  which  that  confused  nar- 
rative has  caused  have  been  largely  owing  to 

1  ii.  9 ;  iii.  9.  2  v.  5 ;  vii.  4-8 ;  xiv.  I ;  xv.  3 ;  xxi.  1 2. 

8  Die  Offenbarungjohannis,  eine  Judische  Apokalypse  in 
christlicher  Bearbeitung,  Eberh.  Vischer,  1886.  This  writer 
points  out  that  the  Christian  passages,  connected  chiefly  with 
the  worship  of  the  Lamb,  constitute  only  about  one  eighth 
of  the  book,  and  when  removed  leave  it  a  much  more  con- 
sistent whole.  The  Christian  interpolations  are :  i.-iii. ;  v.  6, 
8-10,  with  single  words  in  12,  13;  vi.  i,  16  (word  "Lamb") ; 
vii.  9-17;  xi.  8;  xii.  n,  17;  xiii.  8-10;  xiv.  1-5,  10,  12, 13; 
xv.  3 ;  xvi.  1 5 ;  xvii.  6, 14 ;  xviii.  20 ;  xix.  7,  9, 10, 13 ;  xx.  4-6  ; 
xxi.  5-9,  14,  22,  23,  27 ;  xxii.  i,  3,  6-21. 

4  Pfleiderer,  Urchristenthum,  350-356. 


128  PAPIAS 

the  fact  that  it  is  not  a  single  writing,  but  a 
combination  of  several  prophecies  of  different 
dates.1  For  our  present  purposes  it  matters 
little  whether  the  Revelation  was  originally  a 
Christian  writing,  or  a  Jewish  prophecy  ac- 
cepted and  remoulded  by  the  Christian  Church. 
The  significant  thing  is  that  a  book  should  ex- 
ist at  all  which  could  be  called  with  equal  rea- 
son Jewish  or  Christian.  In  any  case  it  shows 
how  vague  was  once  the  dividing  line  between 
the  two  faiths.  In  any  case  it  shows  what  vivid 
expectations  of  an  earthly  future  were  haunting 
Jewish  and  Christian  minds  alike;  and  what 
ample  authority  Papias  had  for  his  millennial 
dreams.  Whatever  its  origin,  there  is  no  doubt 
of  the  profound  influence  which  this  Apocalypse 
exerted  on  the  Christian  belief  of  early  genera- 
tions ;  an  influence  which  did  not  wholly  cease 
till  the  year  1000  A.  D.  had  come  and  gone.2 

There  is  no  more  delicate  problem  than  for  a 
later  generation  to  interpret  to  itself  the  beliefs 
of  an  earlier  and  more  primitive  age.  Readers 
of  the  New  Testament  for  eighteen  centuries 
have  rarely  made  even  the  attempt  to  do  so ; 

1  Note  X. 

2  "  Many  documents  of  this  epoch  open  thus :  '  Appropin- 
quante  mundi  termine.' "     Alzog,  Manual  of  Christian  His- 
tory, ii.  392  n. 


THE  MILLENNIAL  REIGN  129 

and  consequently  that  familiar  volume,  when 
read  to-day,  is  apt  to  convey  to  us  in  many 
places  almost  any  meaning  but  that  which  is 
naturally  and  simply  its  own.  It  is  only  by 
force,  therefore,  and  at  the  peril  of  much  con- 
fusion and  possible  misunderstanding,  that  we 
remind  ourselves  that  Papias's  conception  of  the 
temporal  messiahship  is  in  all  essential  points 
that  of  the  New  Testament  itself.  To  us  this 
is  a  purely  materialistic  idea.  Yet  when  we 
bluntly  pronounce  it  so,  we  must  remember 
that  if  materialistic,  it  is  the  materialism  of  the 
Sermon  on  the  Mount  and  the  Prodigal  Son,  the 
Parable  of  the  Talents  and  the  Good  Samari- 
tan ;  for  it  is  safe  to  say  that  there  is  nothing  in 
the  earlier  Gospels  which  is  inconsistent  with 
this  messianic  future,  or  does  not  distinctly  pre- 
suppose it.  The  Paradise  of  those  Gospels,1 
the  kingdom  of  heaven,2  the  eternal  punishment 
or  reward,3  the  "end  of  the  world,"4  hell',5 
resurrection,6  day  of  judgment,7  eternal  life,8 

1  Luke  xxiii.  43 ;  2  Cor.  xii.  4 ;  Rev.  ii.  7. 

2  Matt.  iii.  2  ;  iv.  17 ;  xxiv.  30 ;  Mark  ix.  47  ;  Luke  xxi.  31 ; 
xiii.  28,  29. 

8  Matt.  xix.  29;  xxv.  31-46.     Comp.  Enoch  105. 

4  Matt.  xiii.  39,  40;  xxiv.  3. 

6  Matt.  v.  29,  30 ;  Mark  ix.  47 ;  Luke  xvi.  22-26. 

6  Matt.  xxii.  28,  30;  Luke  xiv.  14;  xx.  33-36. 

7  Mark  vi.  n  ;  Matt.  xi.  22 ;  xii.  36;  2  Pet.  iii.  7. 

8  Mark  x.  17,  30;  Luke  xviii.  18-30. 


130  PAPIAS 

redemption,1  immortality,2  are  all  parts  of  the 
same  fundamental  conception.  So  with  all  the 
lofty  moral  ideals  of  which  the  Gospels  are  so 
full,  and  for  which  we  chiefly  prize  them ;  if 
these  ideals  seem  to  us  to  demand  for  their 
realization  a  larger  field  than  this  visible  uni- 
verse, the  Christian  of  that  age  did  not  think 
so.  In  his  view,  the  divine  qualities  of  charity, 
faith,  love,  purity,  forgiveness,  self-consecration, 
were  all  attainable  within  the  earthly  kingdom 
which  was  to  appear  before  that  generation  had 
passed,  and  which,  at  certain  exalted  moments, 
seemed  already  to  have  begun.3  Plainly,  it  was 
as  true  then  as  now  that  the  spiritual  mind  sees 
all  things  spiritually.  And  we  cannot  doubt 
that  this  messianic  framework,  within  which 
the  religious  thought  of  the  age  of  necessity 
moved,  took  varied  character  and  coloring  ac- 
cording to  the  special  mind  which  held  it ;  shap- 

1  Luke  xxi.  28-32. 

2  The  word  "  immortality  "  does  not  occur  in  the  Gospels. 
In  the  Epistles  we  find  it  twice ;  in  the  one  case  ascribed  to 
God,  as  his  exclusive  attribute  (i  Tim.  vi.  16),  in  the  other, 
promised  to  all  of  Christ's  followers,    (i  Cor.  xv.  23,  53,  54.) 
In  three  other  instances  where  the  word  appears  in  our  trans- 
lation, it   should  read  "  incorruption,"  or  "  incorruptible." 
(Rom.  ii.  7  ;  i  Tim.  i.  17  ;  2  Tim.  i.  10.) 

8  Luke  xvii.  21.     It  is  uncertain  whether  this  should  be 
translated  "  within  you,"  or  "  among  you." 


THE  MILLENNIAL  REIGN  131 

ing  itself  for  religious  natures  of  the  higher  type 
in  strict  obedience  to  their  imperious  needs.1 

In  any  case,  millenarism  was  the  prevailing 
Christian  belief  of  the  age.  Within  the  ranks 
of  primitive  Judaic  Christianity,  at  least,  barbaric 
to  the  world's  eye,2  untouched  as  yet  by  philo- 
sophic speculation,  it  was  the  universal  faith. 
It  was  the  orthodoxy  of  the  century.  None  but 
heretics  questioned  it.  So  far  from  being  alone 
in  his  faith,  Papias  represented  in  this  respect 
all  the  accepted  writers,  all  the  Christian  "  Fa- 
thers," of  his  time.  Justin  Martyr,  his  contem- 
porary, discusses  this  point  with  Trypho  the  Jew, 
after  the  following  fashion :  "  *  Tell  me/  said 
Trypho,  'do  you  really  claim  that  this  place, 
Jerusalem,  is  to  be  rebuilt,  and  do  you  expect 
your  people  to  come  together  in  it,  and  be  made 
happy  with  Christ  and  the  Patriarchs  and  Pro- 
phets ? '  .  .  .  And  I  answered,  I  am  not  so 
worthless  a  fellow,  O  Trypho,  as  to  say  one 
thing  and  mean  another.  .  .  .  Many,  as  I  have 
told  you,  think  otherwise.  .  .  .  But  I,  and  all 
entirely  right-minded  Christians,  know  well  that 
there  is  to  be  a  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  and 

1  Note  Y. 

2  Tatian,  an  Assyrian  convert  to  Christianity  (about  160), 
has  no  hesitation  in  speaking  of  the  Scriptures  as  "  barbaric 
writings,"  and  of  himself  as  a  "  disciple  of  the  barbaric  phi- 
losophy."    (Add.  to  Greeks,  29,  42.) 


132  PAPIAS 

that  for  a  thousand  years  Jerusalem  will  be  built 
up  and  adorned  and  enlarged  ;  as  the  prophets 
Ezekiel  and  Isaiah  and  the  others  declare." 1 
Irenaeus,2  alarmed  at  the  errors  which  were 
creeping  into  the  church,  wrote  a  work  of  five 
books  "  against  Heresies  ;  "  but  for  Papias  and 
his  doctrine  he  has  only  approving  words.  There 
was  no  heresy  in  that,  but  only  the  highest  truth. 
Quoting  the  words  of  Jesus  as  given  Matt.  xxvi. 
29,  Irenseus  says  :  "  Here  the  Lord  promised  to 
drink  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine  with  his  disciples ; 
thus  indicating  at  the  same  time  an  earthly  in- 
heritance in  which  the  new  fruit  of  the  vine  is 
drunk,  and  his  own  fleshly  resurrection.  For  it 
is  the  newly  risen  flesh  alone  that  could  receive 
the  new  cup.  For  he  cannot  possibly  be  thought 
of  as  drinking  of  the  fruit  of  the  vine  with  his 
disciples  in  supercelestial  places ;  nor  again  can 
they  who  drink  it  be  conceived  as  without  flesh ; 
as  it  is  the  property  of  flesh,  not  spirit,  to  drink 
of  the  vine."  3  The  "New  Jerusalem  "  of  the 

1  Trypho,  80.     Justin  rests  his  faith  upon  Is.lxv.  17,  etc.; 
Ps.  xc.  4;  Rev.  xx.  4,  5.     See,  also,  Trypho,  51,  no,  139. 

2  A.  D.  175. 

8  Hcer.y  v.  xxxiii.  I.  Irenaeus  takes  Luke  xviii.  29,  30,  and 
Matt.  xix.  29,  very  literally.  "  These  refer  to  the  times  of  the 
Kingdom  ...  in  which  they  shall  have  no  earthly  occupa- 
tion, but  shall  have  a  table  prepared  for  them  by  God,  which 
shall  supply  them  with  all  possible  dishes."  (v.  33,  2.) 


THE   MILLENNIAL  REIGN  133 

Apocalypse  is  the  true  and  actual  Jerusalem  ; 
the  Jerusalem  of  history  having  been  but  the 
image  of  the  real.  "  Of  this  tabernacle  Moses 
received  the  pattern  on  the  Mount  ;  and  nothing 
is  allegorical  here  [in  the  New  Jerusalem],  but 
everything  firm,  true,  and  substantial,  prepared 
by  God,  for  the  enjoyment  of  righteous  men."  l 
According  to  the  "  Presbyters,"  whom  Irenaeus, 
as  well  as  Papias,  quotes  so  often,  there  are  to 
be  gradations  of  well-being  in  these  messianic 
realms.  "For  since  the  men  themselves  are 
real,  the  transplanting  must  be  real;  so  that 
they  shall  not  vanish  away  among  things  that 
are  not,  but  progress  among  things  that  are. 
.  .  .  There  is  a  distinction  therefore  between 
those  who  produce  a  hundred-fold,  who  produce 
sixty-fold,  and  who  produce  thirty-fold  :  the  first 
will  be  taken  up  into  the  heavens,  the  second 
will  pass  their  time  in  Paradise,  the  last  will  in- 
habit the  city.  Therefore  it  is  that  the  Lord 
said,  'In  my  Father's  house  are  many  man- 
sions.'"2 

Tertullian  3  also  writes  a  bitter  "  Prescription 
against  Heretics  ;  "  but  finds  no  place  among 
the  heresies  for  the  doctrine  of  the  millennium. 
The  end  of  the  world,  as  he  believes,  is  close 


v.  35,  2.  2  v.  36,  2  ;  John  xiv.  2. 

8  A.  D.  145-220. 


134  PAPIAS 

at  hand,  awaiting  only  the  destruction  of  the 
Roman  empire.  "  For  we  know  that  a  mighty 
shock  is  impending  over  the  entire  universe, 
the  end  of  the  present  world,  threatening  fear- 
ful woes,  and  retarded  only  by  the  continued 
existence  of  the  Roman  empire." l  In  view  of 
this,  the  hope  of  the  faithful  lies  in  the  coming 
of  the  Messiah's  kingdom.  "We  avow  that 
there  is  a  kingdom  promised  us  upon  earth, 
this  side  of  heaven,  yet  in  another  state  of 
being;  I  mean  after  the  resurrection  for  a 
thousand  years,  in  the  divinely  built  city  of 
Jerusalem,  let  down  from  heaven.  Indeed,  this 
prophecy  has  been  very  lately  fulfilled,  during 
the  expedition  to  the  East.  For  it  appears, 
even  upon  pagan  testimony,  that  in  Judaea  for 
forty  days,  in  the  morning  hours,  a  city  hung 
down  from  the  skies,  disappearing  with  all  its 
walls  at  the  approach  of  day.  This  we  affirm 
to  be  the  city  provided  by  God  for  receiving 
the  saints  on  their  resurrection,  and  refreshing 
them  with  an  abundance  of  spiritual  blessings, 
as  a  recompense  for  those  things  which,  in  this 
world,  we  have  either  despised  or  lost."  2  The 
worst  heretics,  in  Tertullian's  eyes,  are  those 
who  claim  for  the  soul  an  immediate  immor- 
tality. "  Let  us  now  turn  to  those  Scriptures 

i  ApoL,  32.  2  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  iii.  24. 


THE   MILLENNIAL  REIGN  135 

which  refute  those  animalists,  for  I  will  not  call 
them  spiritualists,1  who  claim  that  the  resur- 
rection is  here  and  now,  or  immediately  upon 
the  departure  from  this  life."  Are  we  not  told 
that  the  Lord  must  first  come  in  the  clouds  of 
heaven?2  "But  who  has  yet  seen  Jesus  de- 
scending from  heaven,  in  like  manner  as  the 
Apostles  saw  him  ascending  ? 3  .  .  .  Indeed,  is 
there  any  one  who  has  risen  again  —  except  the 
heretic?"4 

It  is  not  necessary  to  pursue  these  citations 
further.  They  represent,  as  I  have  said,  the  pre- 
vailing faith  of  the  period.  Origen  5  seems  to 
have  been  the  first  to  oppose  these  "disciples 
of  the  letter,"  and  insist  upon  a  figurative  inter- 
pretation of  the  New  Jerusalem  and  its  joys  ;6 
and  there  were  soon  others  to  follow  in  his 
steps.7  But  the  old  belief,  deeply  intrenched  in 

1  "  Animates  istos,  ne  dixerim  spiritales." 

2  Luke  xxi.  27.  8  Acts  i.  n. 

*  Res.  Car.,  xxii.  Tertullian  turns  this  millennial  belief  to 
account  in  many  ways.  He  finds  in  it  the  most  unanswer- 
able argument  in  the  troublesome  matter  of  second  mar- 
riages. "  Since  these  things  are  so,  how  will  a  woman  find 
place  for  another  husband,  who  holds  her  own  even  to 
futurity?"  (Monog.,  10.) 

6  A.  D.  185-254.  •  Prin.t  ii.  n,  2. 

7  A  Pannonian  bishop,  Victorinus,  otherwise  little  known, 
writing  about  A.  D.  300,  ends  a  commentary  on  the  Apoca- 


136  PAPIAS 

the  Scriptures  themselves,  and  resenting  the 
devices  of  the  allegorists,  held  its  own  persist- 
ently. In  western  churches,  and  certain  regions 
of  the  East,  it  remained  unshaken  through  the 
third  century.1  In  fact,  it  has  never  yet  died 
out  of  the  Christian  Church.  The  expectation 
of  a  millennial  reign,  under  some  form,  has 
shown  strange  power  to  survive ;  even  its  gross- 
est features  reappearing  generation  after  gen- 
eration. Even  where  it  has  been  rejected  as 
a  doctrine,  it  has  left  its  ineffaceable  stamp ; 
and  it  will  hardly  be  claimed  that  the  popular 
notion  of  the  future  to-day  is  essentially  nobler 
or  more  "spiritual,"  except  in  name,  than 
these  primitive  beliefs.  The  creeds  of  the 
church  have  disclaimed  the  Apocalyptic  doc- 
trine as  a  whole ;  but,  for  some  occult  reason, 
while  silent  upon  the  millennium,  have  retained 
the  resurrection  of  the  flesh,  and  the  visible 
return  of  Christ  in  glory  to  judge  the  quick 
and  dead.  In  these  days  we  mention  the  mil- 
lennium only  with  a  smile;  but  the  first  two 

lypse  with  the  words :  "  Therefore  they  are  not  to  be  heard 
who  assure  themselves  that  there  is  to  be  an  earthly  reign  of 
a  thousand  years."  (Comm.  on  the  Apocalypse,  22.)  Euse- 
bius's  idea  of  such  beliefs  we  have  already  seen.  (P.  107.) 

1  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  vii.  24 ;  Lactantius,  Div.  Instit.,  vii. 
14,  24.  Comp.  Encyc.  Brit.,  Qth  ed.,  art.  "  Millennium,"  by 
Harnack. 


THE   MILLENNIAL  REIGN  137 

Christian  centuries  are  not  to  be  explained 
without  it ;  nor  was  it  surrendered  by  the  in- 
fant church  till  unwelcome  speculations  from 
without  came  in  to  disturb  its  na'fve  messianic 
dream. 


CHAPTER  V 

THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS 

IT  is  hardly  to  be  supposed  that  beliefs  such 
as  have  just  been  described  would  satisfy  all 
minds.  Papias  himself,  as  will  be  remembered, 
alludes  to  certain  "  retailers  of  strange  doc- 
trines; " l  thus  suggesting  other  intellectual  cur- 
rents than  any  which  we  have  yet  traced.  We 
have  seen,  too,  that  the  "shipmaster  of  Pon- 
tus,"  as  he  was  called,2  was  giving  the  churches 
something  to  think  of ;  and  we  soon  find  that 
Marcion' s  mental  restlessness  was  one  instance 
only  of  a  theological  ferment  which  portended 
serious  results. 

Let  us  return  for  a  moment  to  Marcion  and 
the  Scripture  investigations  which  he  was  pur- 
suing. In  the  course  of  those  investigations 
he  came  upon  writings  more  ancient,  and  to 
his  mind  far  more  trustworthy,  than  the  float- 
ing Gospel  narratives  then  chiefly  in  vogue. 
These  were  the  Epistles  of  Paul.  To  Marcion, 
as  we  have  already  seen,  Paul  was  the  only  true 
i  p.  6.  2  p.  83. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        139 

Apostle.  He  was  the  "Apostle,  not  of  men, 
neither  by  man,  but  by  Jesus  Christ,  and  God 
the  Father." l  He  had  a  Gospel  of  his  own  to 
preach,  very  different  from  that  of  the  older 
Apostles,  whom  he  had  so  sharply  rebuked  for 
their  "  dissimulation." 2  Paul  was  the  real 
representative  of  Christ  and  his  word. 

We  cannot  be  surprised  that  Marcion  found 
a  difference  between  the  earlier  Gospels  and 
Paul's  Epistles  (supposing  that  his  Gospels  and 
Epistles  corresponded  with  ours),  for  the  con- 
flicting views  of  Christ  which  these  writings  pre- 
sent strike  every  thoughtful  reader  to-day.  In 
the  Gospels,  we  have  the  homely  details  of  the 
Master's  daily  life  and  speech,  with  hardly  a 
hint  of  his  celestial  functions  ;  in  the  Epistles, 
the  celestial  functions  become  all  in  all,  with 
hardly  a  hint  of  the  earthly  and  human  career. 
In  the  Gospels,  the  Jewish  life  and  ceremonial 
are  frankly  assumed  ;  in  the  Epistles,  they  are 
as  frankly  dismissed,  as  "weak  and  beggarly 
elements/'  to  which  no  Christian  should  "  desire 
again  to  be  in  bondage."  3 

In  a  word,  for  we  need  not  look  far  to  ex- 
plain this  distinction,  Paul  was  a  scholar  of  the 

1  Gal.  i.  i. 

2  Gal.  ii.  13.    See  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  i.  20 ;  iv.  3 ;  v.  i. 
8  Gal.  iv.  9. 


140  PAPIAS 

rabbis ;  and  as  such  versed  not  only  in  the 
barren  subtilties  which  we  commonly  associate 
with  that  name,  but  also  in  much  wider  inves- 
tigations. It  was  a  period  of  transcendental 
speculation,  whose  influence  could  hardly  have 
failed  to  reach  the  Jewish  schools  of  thought, 
even  had  the  Jewish  mind  been  less  responsive 
then  than  it  is  now  to  the  spiritual  or  intel- 
lectual activities  of  the  hour.  In  Alexandria, 
as  we  know,  the  contact  of  Greek  and  Jewish 
thought  had  produced  one  of  the  most  far- 
reaching  theological  movements  of  the  age;1 
and  neither  Palestine  nor  Tarsus  was  so  far 
distant  from  Alexandria  as  to  remain  wholly 
uninfluenced  by  its  religious  life.2  According 
to  an  early  tradition,  Paul  had  sat  at  the  feet  of 
Gamaliel,  one  of  the  most  advanced  scholars  of 
his  day  ; 8  and,  whether  this  be  true  or  not,  his 

1  There  is  no  proof  that  Paul  was  directly  influenced  by 
Philo ;  but  there  is  abundant  evidence  that  the  same  gen- 
eral influences  were  at  work  both  in  Palestine  and  in  Alex- 
andria. 

2  Acts  xviii.  24-28  ;  xix.  i. 

8  Acts  xxii.  3.  In  his  own  writings  Paul  never  mentions 
Gamaliel ;  nor  is  there  any  special  evidence,  so  the  critics 
think,  of  Gamaliel's  influence  upon  his  thought.  (Hausrath, 
Time  of  Apostles,  iii.  33,  34.)  At  the  same  time,  due  weight 
must  be  given  the  above  passage  from  Acts,  as  a  tradition. 
According  to  a  rabbinical  tradition,  Gamaliel  taught  500 
scholars  "  Greek  wisdom."  (Gfrorer,  Urchrist.,  i.  2,  402-405.) 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        141 

Epistles  in  themselves  give  abundant  proof  of 
his  familiarity  with  the  best  rabbinical  training 
then  current.  We  need  not  go  beyond  that 
training,  or  the  Jewish  literature  of  the  age, 
to  find  tokens  of  a  widespread  Hellenistic  influ- 
ence, which  a  mind  like  Paul's  would  be  the  last 
to  have  escaped.1  He  comes  to  his  new  faith 
with  ideals  of  the  Messiah  and  his  reign  quite 
unlike  those  of  the  Galilaean  disciples.  He,  too, 
is  looking  for  a  speedy  coming  of  the  Lord,2 
but  the  Messiah  of  whom  he  dreams  is  a  being 
of  a  far  more  exalted  type.  This  was  a  theme 
evidently  on  which  Jewish  speculation  had 
already  occupied  itself,  and  over  which  Paul 
himself  must  have  pondered,  long  before  he 
had  heard  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth. 

We  have  already  spoken  of  the  influence 
upon  the  Jewish  imagination  exerted  by  Daniel's 
vision  of  the  Son  of  man  coming  in  the  clouds 
of  heaven.  "  I  saw  in  the  night  visions,  and, 
behold,  one  like  the  Son  of  man  came  with  the 
clouds  of  heaven,  and  came  to  the  Ancient  of 
days,  and  they  brought  him  near  before  him. 
And  there  was  given  him  dominion,  and  glory, 
and  a  kingdom,  that  all  people,  nations,  and 
languages,  should  serve  him."  3  But  other  texts 

1  Note  Z.  2  I  Cor.  i.  7 ;  x.  n  ;  i  Thess.  iv.  17. 

8  Dan.  vii.  13-27.     See,  also,  Enoch  xlvi.-xlviii.,  Ixi.,  xc. 


142  PAPIAS 

there  were  which  had  also  exercised  the  ingenu- 
ity of  the  age,  and  whose  influence  upon  Paul's 
messianic  ideals  his  Epistles  plainly  show.1 
Among  these  was  the  double  narrative  of  the 
creation  in  Genesis,  to  which  he  attached  so 
profound  a  significance.2  The  distinction  be- 
tween the  first  two  chapters  of  Genesis,  which 
was  pointed  out  by  a  French  critic 3  about  a 
century  ago,  and  which  became  almost  the 
starting-point  of  modern  biblical  criticism,  had 
been  discovered  by  Jewish  scholars,  it  seems, 
seventeen  centuries  before,  and  had  led,  in 
Alexandria  at  least,  to  very  mystic  conclusions. 
According  to  the  first  chapter,  "  God  created 
man  in  his  own  image."  According  to  the 
second,  "The  Lord  God  formed  man  of  the 
dust  of  the  ground,  and  breathed  into  his 
nostrils  the  breath  of  life ;  and  man  became 
a  living  soul."  4  Here,  then,  according  to  the 
schools,  are  two  creations ;  the  first  a  hea- 
venly man,  of  divine  birth  and  divine  nature ; 
the  second  of  the  earth,  earthy.  The  latter 

1  i  Cor.  x.  1-4  ;  Gal.  iii.  16.  2  Gen.  i.,  ii. 

8  Astruc,   Conjectures  sur  les  Mtmoires  Originaux,  etc. 

1753- 

4  Gen.  i.  27  ;  ii.  7.  "  Soul,"  according  to  the  ancient  divi- 
sion, was  the  life  of  the  senses,  or  animal  life,  as  distinct 
from  body,  on  the  one  hand,  and  spirit,  on  the  other.  Comp. 
i  Thess.  v.  23. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        143 

was  the  real  man,  as  he  has  already  appeared 
on  earth,  the  former  the  ideal  man,  as  con- 
ceived in  God's  thought,  and  dwelling  with 
him  from  all  eternity.1  This  heavenly  or  ideal 
man  has  become  identified  in  Paul's  thought 
with  the  Messiah ;  and  upon  the  above  passage 
he  bases  his  doctrine  of  the  first  and  second 
Adam.  "  So  it  is  written,  The  first  man  Adam 
was  made  a  living  soul;  the  last  Adam  was 
made  a  quickening  spirit.  Howbeit  that  was 
not  first  which  is  spiritual,  but  that  which  is 
natural ;  and  afterward  that  which  is  spiritual. 
The  first  man  is  of  the  earth,  earthy ;  the  sec- 
ond man  is  the  Lord  from  heaven."  2 

1  Philo,  in  commenting  upon  Gen.  ii.  7,  says  :  "  There  are 
two  species  of  men ;  one  is  the  heavenly  man,  the  other  the 
earthly.    The  heavenly  has  no  part  whatever  in  the  perishable 
or  earthly  creation,  being  born  in  the  image  of  God  ;  but  the 
other  was  fashioned  out  of  vagrant   matter  called   earth. 
Therefore  the  heavenly  man  is  not  spoken  of  as  created,  but 
as  formed  in  God's  image ;  while  the  earthly  was  not  be- 
gotten, but  created."   Leg.  Alleg.,  i.  12.    See,  also,  De  Mundi 
Opif.,  46;  Leg.  Alleg.^  i.  16;  i.  29.     This  image  of  God,  or 
archetypal  man,  Philo  elsewhere  identifies  with  the  Logos. 
(Confus.  Ling.,  28.)     Comp.  Gfrorer,  Urchrist.,\.  267  ;  Haus- 
rath,   Time  of  Apostles,   iii.   22,   97 ;    Pfleiderer,    Urchrist., 
213. 

2  i  Cor.  xv.  45-47.     In  saying  "  it  is  written,"  it  is  uncer- 
tain whether   Paul   means  to  give   the  whole  verse   as   a 
Scripture  citation,  or  only  the  first  clause ;  but  the  natural 
inference  is  that  it  is  the  whole,  and  that  he  is  quoting  from 


144  PAPIAS 

These  are  conceptions,  we  must  remember, 
for  which  Paul  found  the  way  prepared,  even  if 
the  definite  ideals  were  not  given,  in  his  earlier 
faith.  The  idealizing  process  had  already  begun. 
The  Messiah  has  ceased  in  his  thought  to  be 
the  earthly  ruler  of  an  earthly  kingdom,  he  has 
become  a  celestial  being,  present  with  God 
from  the  beginning,  and  awaiting  the  moment 
to  enter  upon  his  earthly  mission.  Paul  is 
looking  for  a  heavenly  Messiah,  and  finds  him 
in  Jesus  of  Nazareth,  who,  having  risen  from 
the  dead,  has  thus  shown  himself  a  being  of 
spiritual  nature ;  the  very  Lord  from  heaven. 
It  is  in  this  light  that  Paul  attaches  such  su- 
preme importance  to  the  resurrection  of  Jesus. 
Indeed,  he  tells  us  little  else  of  Jesus  but  this 
one  fact.  He  assures  us  that  if  this  be  not 
true,  then  his  preaching  was  vain,  and  all  faith 
in  Christ  vain.1  If  it  were  not  true,  then  even 

some  Scripture  version  then  familiar  in  the  schools,  but  no 
longer  known.  (Hausrath,  Time  of  Apostles,  iii.  22;  Weiz- 
sacker,  Apos.  Age,  ii.  276.)  It  should  be  added  that  there 
is  no  other  evidence  than  this  passage  affords  that  the  dis- 
tinction of  the  "  first  Adam  "  and  "last  Adam  "  was  in  vogue 
in  Paul's  time,  as  it  is  not  found  in  rabbinical  literature,  it  is 
claimed,  till  after  the  time  of  Christ.  (See  Professor  G.  F. 
Moore,  on  "  Last  Adam,"  in  Jour,  of  Biblical  Literature, 
1897.) 

1  i  Cor.  xv.  14;  also,  Rom.  i.  4.  This  belief  is  based 
partly  on  Old  Testament  prophecies,  (i  Cor.  xv.  3,  4.) 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        145 

those  who  had  died  in  the  faith  had  perished.1 
In  this  escape  from  the  grave  lay  the  very  proof 
and  secret  of  his  messiahship. 

The  belief  in  the  resurrection  of  Jesus  2  was 
already  current  in  the  Christian  community,  it 
appears,  when  Paul  entered  it ; 3  but  it  was  not 
on  this  testimony  that  he  relied  for  his  own 
acceptance  of  it.  Others  had  had  their  visions 
of  the  risen  one ;  he,  too,  had  had  his.  He  also 
had  seen  Christ.4  But  to  what  does  he  allude 
here?  Not  of  course  to  such  bodily  appear- 
ances of  Jesus  as  are  described  in  the  earlier 
Gospels ; 6  for  it  is  never  supposed  that  Paul 
was  in  Jerusalem  at  that  period,  nor  is  it  con- 
ceivable, had  he  witnessed  these  miraculous  inci- 
dents, that  he  would  have  waited  for  the  lesser 

1  i  Cor.  xv.  1 8. 

2  We  have  already  seen  the  widely  different  meanings 
attached  in  those  days  to   the  terms   "resurrection"   and 
"immortality."     (Pp.  116-123.)    Resurrection  meant  simply 
the  rising  from  the  grave ;  it  might  be  to  pass  into  spiritual 
realms,  it  might  be  to  enter  the  earthly  kingdom  of   the 
Messiah.     The  belief  in  it  in  some  form  had  long  been  held 
in  certain  Jewish  schools.     (Acts  xxiii.  8;  Josephus,  Antiq., 
xviii.  i,  3.) 

8  i  Cor.  xv.  5,  6,  7. 

*  i  Cor.  ix.  i ;  xv.  8.  "  I  neither  received  [the  gospel]  of 
man,  neither  was  I  taught  it,  but  by  the  revelation  of  Jesus 
Christ."  Gal.  i.  12. 

6  Mark  xvi.  9-18. 


146  PAPIAS 

miracle  at  Damascus,  to  be  converted.  He  must 
be  referring  to  some  special  vision,  at  Damascus 
or  elsewhere,1  granted  to  him  after  becoming 
acquainted  with  the  new  faith,  but  before  his 
final  acceptance  of  it.  What  the  nature  of  this 
vision  was  we  can  easily  conjecture  from  the 
description  of  a  similar  experience,  which  he 
gives  us  himself  with  singular  vividness.  "  I 
will  come  to  visions  and  revelations  of  the  Lord. 
I  knew  a  man  in  Christ  above  fourteen  years 
ago,  (whether  in  the  body,  I  cannot  tell ;  or 
whether  out  of  the  body,  I  cannot  tell :  God 
knoweth ;)  such  an  one  caught  up  to  the  third 
heaven.2  And  I  knew  such  a  man  .  .  .  how 
that  he  was  caught  up  into  paradise,  and  heard 
unspeakable  words,  which  it  is  not  lawful  for  a 
man  to  utter. "  3  However  obscure  these  psycho- 
logical phenomena  may  be  to  us,  to  Paul,  with 
whom  they  were  not  infrequent,4  they  evidently 

1  The  incident  at  Damascus  is  nowhere  mentioned  in  the 
Epistles,  and  our  only  knowledge  of  it  is  from  the  contra- 
dictory accounts  in  Acts  (ix.  3-9;  xxii.  6-n;  xxvi.  12-18). 
These  accounts  point  to  some  oral  tradition,  based  perhaps 
on  Gal.  i.  15-17. 

2  According  to   rabbinical    theology  there    were    seven 
heavens.     Paul   seems  here  to  identify  the  third  of  these 
with  Paradise.     2  Cor.  xii.  2,  4.     See  Llicke,  Offenbarung,  i. 
287,  etc. 

3  2  Cor.  xii.  1-4. 

4  Acts  xvi.  9,  10;  xviii.  9;  xxii.   17-21;  xxiii.  n;  xxvii. 
23,  24. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        147 

carried  great  meaning.  They  were  his  revela- 
tions. They  supplied  him  with  the  intuitions 
which  were  so  much  more  convincing  than  any 
human  testimony.  In  the  present  case,  this 
apparition  of  the  risen  Jesus,  objectively  real  to 
him,  was  plainly  the  very  proof  for  which  he 
was  waiting.  Not  the  living  man,  in  flesh  and 
bones,  to  be  touched  and  handled,  and  to  par- 
take of  physical  nourishment,1  but  the  spiritual 
and  already  glorified  Jesus,  coming  down  from 
the  right  hand  of  God.  Jesus  therefore  had 
not  really  died  ;  he  had  triumphed  over  death, 
and  had  now  descended  from  heavenly  regions, 
to  reveal  himself  in  spiritual  form  to  Paul.  In 
thus  overcoming  death,  and  establishing  the 
spiritual  kingdom,  he  made  the  spiritual  life 
possible  for  all  who  believed  in  him.  "  Christ 

1  Luke  xxiv.  36-43.  As  these  Gospel  narratives  are  later 
than  the  Epistles,  we  may  fairly  assume  that  Paul's  state- 
ments of  a  purely  visionary  appearance  are  the  oldest  form 
of  the  tradition  of  Christ's  resurrection  ;  the  other  accounts 
marking  the  gradual  legendary  accretions.  As  Paul  uses 
the  same  language  in  describing  the  appearance  of  Christ  to 
Peter,  James,  and  the  other  disciples,  as  in  speaking  of  his 
own  vision,  he  no  doubt  thought  of  them  all  as  spiritual 
manifestations,  (i  Cor.  xv.  5,  6,  7,  8.)  In  the  case  of  the 
multitudes  (xv.  6),  the  vision  of  one,  in  moments  of  great 
excitement,  might  easily  be  accepted  as  the  vision  of  all. 

For  this  subject,  see  Toy's  Judaism,  274,394;  C.  C. 
Everett's  Gospel  of  Paul,  211-213,  2I7»  227- 


148  PAP  I  AS 

the  firstfruits  ;  afterward  they  that  are  Christ's 
at  his  coming."  1  With  his  coming,  the  new 
life  would  begin.  All  his  followers,  whether 
then  living,  or  already  dead,  would  be  clothed 
in  incorruptible  bodies,  and  enter  upon  immor- 
tal life.  "  Behold,  I  show  you  a  mystery ;  We 
shall  not  all  sleep,  but  we  shall  be  changed,  in 
a  moment,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  at  the 
last  trump  :  for  the  trumpet  shall  sound,  and  the 
dead  shall  be  raised  incorruptible,  and  we  shall 
be  changed.  For  this  corruptible  must  put  on 
incorruption,  and  this  mortal  must  put  on 
immortality."  2 

In  view  of  these  convictions,  drawn  from  his 
previous  faith,  we  cannot  be  surprised  that 
Paul's  language  concerning  his  Master  takes 
from  the  beginning  so  exalted  a  form.  He 
describes  him  as  sent  forth  from  God  "  in  the 
fulness  of  time."  He  calls  him  the  "Lord  of 
glory."  He  declares  that  through  him  we  and 
all  things  exist.  He  holds  him  to  be  the  very 
Son  of  God,  sent  to  the  earth  for  a  season,  "  in 
the  likeness  of  sinful  flesh."  3  As  Paul  pursues 
his  mission,  we  cannot  but  feel  that  this  lofty 
conception  grows  more  and  more  celestial,  less 
and  less  human.  Indeed,  if  his  shorter  Epistles, 

1  i  Cor.  xv.  23.  2  xv.  51-53. 

3  Gal.  iv.  4 ;  i  Cor.  ii.  8 ;  viii.  6 ;  Rom.  viii.  3. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        149 

admitted  by  Marcion  into  his  collection,  but 
questioned  by  later  scholars,  are  really  his,  the 
heavenly  regions,  with  their  hierarchy  of  Angels, 
Principalities,  and  Powers,  became  to  Paul  the 
familiar  scene  of  the  entire  Gospel  transaction.1 
In  these  heavenly  places,  as  he  believed,  Christ 
was  throned,  "  Far  above  all  principality,  and 
power,  and  might,  and  dominion,  and  every 
name  that  is  named,  not  only  in  this  world,  but 
also  in  that  which  is  to  come."  Christ  was  the 
supreme  agent  in  creation  :  "  For  by  him  were 
all  things  created,  that  are  in  heaven,  and  that 
are  in  earth,  visible  and  invisible,  ...  all  things 
were  created  by  him,  and  for  him."  Paul  goes 
so  far  as  to  say,  "  In  him  dwelleth  all  the  ful- 
ness of  the  Godhead  bodily."  2 

These  are  sublime  ideals.  If  the  human 
Jesus  still  holds  his  own  in  this  celestial  com- 
panionship, a  great  step  has  been  taken  towards 
that  union  of  the  human  and  the  divine,  for 
which  the  human  soul  so  passionately  sighs. 

It  is  the  supreme  test  of  idealism,  that  while 
it  lets  the  imagination  range  at  will  in  highest 
realms,  it  is  yet  able  to  keep  the  feet  firmly 
planted  on  solid  earth.  It  is  not  strange  that 
Paul  could  not  meet  this  test.  Too  much  was 
at  stake.  What  Christianity  meant  to  him,  if 

i  Note  AA.  2  Eph.  i.  21 ;  Col.  L  16 ;  ii.  9. 


150  PAPIAS 

he  was  to  accept  it  at  all,  was  the  advent  of  a 
heavenly  being  on  earth.  If  Christ  was  not 
such  a  being,  then  his  faith  was  vain.  The 
theological  refinements  of  centuries  have  ac- 
customed men  to  feel  that  such  a  being  could 
be  human  and  superhuman  in  one.  To  Paul, 
standing  at  the  threshold  of  these  discussions, 
no  such  illusion  was  possible.  If  Jesus  was 
really  the  superterrestrial  visitant  which  his 
resurrection  declared,  then  his  human  life  in 
Galilee  could  have  been  only  a  passing  incident, 
of  little  meaning.  It  was  but  the  visible  token, 
the  sign-manual,  of  a  divine  event.  To  blend 
that  earthly  life  with  the  spiritual  functions 
of  the  Son  of  God  became  to  Paul  more  and 
more  impossible,  and  he  ceased  at  last  to  at- 
tempt it.  The  time  came  when  he  could  say  : 
"  Though  we  have  known  Christ  after  the  flesh, 
yet  now  henceforth  know  we  him  no  more."  1 

How  else  can  we  explain  the  fact  that  Paul's 
writings  contain  so  few  allusions  of  any  kind  to 
the  life  or  teachings  of  Jesus  ?  That  life  had 
hardly  ended  when  Paul  came  upon  the  scene ; 
its  memories  were  still  fresh  ;  the  companions 
of  Jesus  were  at  hand  to  tell  him,  if  he  chose 
to  ask,  all  the  personal  qualities  that  had  exerted 
such  mighty  power  over  men.  But  he  did  not 
1  2  Cor.  v.  1 6. 


THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS        151 

choose  to  ask.  He  prides  himself  upon  not  ask- 
ing. He  takes  special  pains  to  say  to  the  Gala- 
tians:  "When  it  pleased  God  ...  to  reveal  his 
Son  in  me,  ...  I  conferred  not  with  flesh  and 
blood  :  neither  went  I  up  to  Jerusalem  to  them 
which  were  apostles  before  me ;  but  I  went 
into  Arabia,  and  returned  again  unto  Damascus. 
Then  after  three  years  I  went  up  to  Jerusalem  to 
see  Peter,  and  abode  with  him  fifteen  days.  But 
other  of  the  disciples  saw  I  none,  save  James  the 
Lord's  brother."  l  In  other  words,  their  memo- 
ries of  the  Lord's  daily  life  and  speech,  or  of 
his  familiar  habits  and  tones,  had  no  interest 
for  Paul.  Even  the  precepts  of  the  Master 
had  no  place  in  Paul's  teachings.  His  letters 
to  his  followers  would  have  gained  tenfold 
moral  power,  if  reinforced  by  lofty  maxims  from 
the  Master's  lips.  So,  at  least,  it  seems  to  us, 
to  whom  the  earthly  life  of  Jesus  is  the  great 
spiritual  event  of  the  ages.  But  no :  a  few 
allusions  to  his  death  and  resurrection,  two  or 
three  scanty  references  to  the  words  of  Christ, 
whether  told  him  by  others,  or  received  by 
special  vision,  we  cannot  tell,2  and  that  is  all. 
No  parables,  no  beatitudes,  no  exhortations,  no 

1  Gal.  i.  15-19. 

2  i  Cor.  vii.  10,  12,  25 ;  ix.  14  ;  xi.  23,  24;  xv.  3 ;  I  Thess. 
iv.  15.  _ 


152  PAPIAS 

discussions  with  Pharisee  or  publican,  no  self- 
consecration  to  a  sacred  career,  no  heroic  self- 
sacrifice.  Those  earthly  incidents,  we  must 
suppose,  were  for  the  hour  only,  and  for  those 
who  witnessed  them ;  the  real  Jesus,  all  the 
time,  was  the  celestial  visitant.1  The  grand 
meaning  of  that  life  in  this  view  was  not  that 
the  human  became  divine,  but  that  divinity 
dwelt  for  a  moment  in  the  ranks  of  humanity. 
Except  for  the  Christ  himself,  and  those  that 
"  are  Christ's,"  the  human  and  divine  remained 
as  distinct  as  ever.  Had  this  involved  the 
Apostle  Paul  alone,  it  would  be  simply  one 
chapter  the  more  of  the  world's  religious  phi- 
losophy, to  be  easily  closed,  and  forgotten. 
Where  it  affects  the  struggles  of  many  genera- 
tions to  gain  a  firmer  hold  upon  divine  realities, 
it  becomes  a  more  serious  affair.2 

1  Even  where  Paul  brings  Jesus  forward  as  an  example,  it 
is  the  heavenly  Jesus,  not  the  human.     (2  Cor.  viii.  9 ;  Phil, 
it  5-8.) 

2  Difficulties   over  this  problem  began  early.     Tertullian 
complains  that  the  simple-minded,  who  are  always  in  the 
majority,  charged  their  leaders  with  preaching  two  Gods,  or 
three,  like  the  pagans ;  being  too  simple-minded  to  under- 
stand that  "  the  trinity  grows  out  of  the  unity."     (Prax.,  3.) 
Origen,  who  seems  to  have  been  the  first  to  fairly  face  the 
question  of  the  union  of   God  and  man  in  Jesus,  virtually 
surrenders  the  task.     He  thinks  human  language  quite  in- 
competent to  explain  it,  and  doubts  if  even  the  holy  Apostles 


THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS        153 

One  disciple,  at  least,  was  not  slow  in  follow- 
ing in  the  steps  of  the  great  Apostle.  Paul's 
exalted  conception  of  Christ  had  seized  upon 
Marcion's  imagination.  It  had  been  forgotten 
by  the  churches,  he  declared,  which  had  clung 
too  fondly  to  the  terrestrial  promises  of  Juda- 
ism and  its  terrestrial  scenery.  Both  the 
Christian  Scriptures  and  the  Christian  faith 
needed  a  thorough  purification.  According  to 
Marcion,  pursuing  Paul's  thought  quite  beyond 
Paul  himself,  Christianity  owed  nothing  what- 
ever to  Judaism  ;  its  coming  was  an  absolutely 
new  epoch  in  the  career  of  humanity ;  not  a 
higher  unfolding  of  a  previous  revelation,  but 
the  very  beginning  of  man's  higher  life.  It 
was  the  first  entrance  of  the  divine  into  the 
world.  In  the  presence  of  this  new  life,  and 
the  heavenly  future  which  it  involved,  all  spec- 
ulation upon  the  messianic  kingdom  and  the 
end  of  the  world  lost  its  interest.  An  endless 
future  in  celestial  companionship  disclosed  it- 
self. Till  then  God  had  been  wholly  unknown ; 
he  revealed  himself  first  in  Christ.  All  previous 
history  compared  with  this  was  as  earthly  to 
heavenly.  The  Old  Testament  was  not  false  ; 
it  was  the  story  of  a  primordial  race  under  an 

understood  it.     Possibly,  indeed,  "  it  was  a  mystery  beyond 
the  grasp  of  the  entire  celestial  host."    (Prin.,  ii.  6,  2.) 


154  PAPIAS 

inferior  and  primordial  God.  Marcion  shrunk 
from  none  of  the  logical  consequences  of  his 
position.  "  A  corrupt  tree  cannot  bring  forth 
good  fruit,"  he  quoted;  "neither  a  good  tree 
corrupt  fruit."1  The  cruelties  and  idolatries 
of  Israel  could  have  come  only  from  an  evil 
deity.  Jehovah  was  a  God  indeed,  the  Creator 
of  the  world,  as  the  Jewish  Scriptures  claim ; 
but  it  was  this  lower  world  which  he  created  ; 
above  which  was  a  spiritual  world,  where  dwells 
the  supreme  God.2 

For  the  theologian  of  to-day,  to  have  two 
Gods  to  account  for  would  be  embarrassing. 
Not  so  to  Marcion ;  hardly  so,  indeed,  to  any  of 
the  Christian  divines  of  that  early  time,  accus- 
tomed as  they  were  to  speak  of  the  "prince 
of  the  world,"  or  "  prince  of  the  power  of  the 
air,"  with  his  legions  of  evil  angels  or  demi- 
gods.3 Marcion  was  fond  of  quoting  from  the 

1  Luke  vi.  43. 

2  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  i.  2,  etc. ;  Iren.,  Hcer.,  i.  27,  2  ;  Hipp, 
vii.  29,  30 ;  x.  19  ;  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  iii.  3 ;  iii.  4 ;  v.  i. 

Marcion's  speculative  tendencies  have  been  generally 
ascribed  to  the  influences  of  Cerdo,  a  Syrian  mystic  whom 
he  met  in  Rome.  (Tertull.  adv.  Marc.i.  2 ;  Iren.,  H<zr.,  i.  27, 
2;  iii.  4,  3;  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  10;  iv.  n,  2.)  As  we 
know  hardly  anything  about  Cerdo,  however,  except  that 
Marcion  was  his  follower,  the  disciple  is  much  more  impor- 
tant to  us,  in  any  case,  than  the  master. 

8  John  xiv.  30;  Eph.  ii.  2;  iii.  10;  i.  21 ;  vi.  12. 


THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS        155 

Psalms  :  "  God  standeth  in  the  congregation  of 
the  mighty  ;  he  judgeth  among  the  gods."  "  I 
have  said,  Ye  are  gods." 1  These  were  phrases 
quite  as  familiar,  of  course,  to  the  Christian  as 
to  the  Jew,  and  must  have  meant  something  to 
them  both.  In  fact,  polytheism  died  slowly, 
even  under  the  assaults  of  Judaism  or  Chris- 
tianity ;  losing  its  name  in  the  process,  while 
bequeathing  to  them  its  spirit.  For  Marcion, 
these  two  Gods  were  the  keystone  of  his  system. 
The  true  God,  the  only  one  worthy  of  the  name, 
was  pure  spirit,  the  embodiment  of  goodness 
and  love,  dwelling  in  the  highest  heavens,  calm 
and  undisturbed.2  The  other,  Demiurge  or 
Cosmocrator,  as  you  choose,  whom  he  identified 
with  the  Jehovah  of  the  Jews,3  was  the  lover 
of  war,  and  the  embodiment  of  sternness  and 
cruelty.4  His  supreme  characteristic  was  jus- 
tice. He  is  the  God  who  "  creates  evil,"  5  who 
spoiled  the  Egyptians,  who  required  "an  eye 
for  an  eye," 6  who  made  Saul  a  king,  and  then 

1  Ps.  Ixxxii.  i,  6;  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  i.  7. 

2  i.  2 ;  i.  6 ;  Prces.^  vii. 

8  Hipp.  vii.  30;  Iren.  i.  27,  2.     Comp.  Heb.  xi.  10;  Eph. 
vi.  12. 
*  Iren.  i.  27,  2 ;  Tertull.  i.  6.     Comp.  Life  of  Tennyson,  i. 

314. 

5  Is.  xlv.  7 ;  Tertull.  ii.  20. 

6  Ex.  xxi.  24;  Tertull.  ii.  18. 


156  PAPIAS 

repented  of  it,1  who  had  to  ask  Adam,  "  Where 
art  thou  ?"  not  knowing  where  he  had  hid  him- 
self,2 and  came  down  to  Sodom  and  Gomor- 
rah, to  "  see  whether  they  had  done  altogether 
according  to  the  cry  of  it  which  had  come 
unto  him,"  and  who  rejected  Moab  and  Ammon 
for  all  time,  for  not  offering  hospitality  to  the 
Israelite  invaders.3  Jehovah,  according  to  Mar- 
cion,  sincerely  thought  himself  the  one  only 
God,  being  unaware  of  the  higher  Being  in 
whose  place  he  was  figuring.4  The  Prophets, 
ignorant  also  of  the  ineffable  Father,  were 
inspired  by  the  Demiurge  to  predict  a  false 
Messiah,  who  came  indeed,  but  came  only  to 
insure  to  scattered  Israel  the  recovery  of  their 
land,  and  the  repose  of  Abraham's  bosom ; 
while  the  true  Messiah  came  to  offer  liberation 
to  the  human  race.6 

The  two  worlds,  according  to  this  daring 
innovator,  were  as  distinct  as  the  two  Gods. 
The  one  was  a  spiritual  realm,  the  other  purely 
earthly,  having  to  do  with  matter  alone,  in 

1  i  Sam.  xv.  ii ;  Tertull.  ii.  24. 

2  Tertull.  ii.  25. 

3  Deut.  xxiii.  3 ;  Tertull.  iv.  24. 
*  Tertull.  i.  n. 

5  Justin,  ApoL,  i.  58 ;  Iren.  iv.  34,  1-5 ;  Epiph.,  Har.,  42, 
43;  Tertull.  iii.  4,  21-24.  See,  also,  Iren.  i.  27,  3;  Tertull. 
i.  27,  28. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        157 

which  inheres  all  evil ; l  a  dualistic  notion  by 
no  means  peculiar  to  Marcion,  but  standing 
ready  then  as  now  as  the  easiest  explanation  of 
the  existence  of  evil  and  sin.2  Between  these 
two  worlds  no  communication  was  possible,  as 
the  material  can  have  no  touch  with  the  spir- 
itual, nor  even  consciousness  of  it.3  Only  by 
introducing  into  the  lower  world  the  quality  of 
spirit  could  the  alliance  between  the  two  be 
established.  This  was  accomplished  by  the 
Son  of  God,  who  appeared  in  Capernaum  unan- 
nounced and  without  human  birth,  who  took 
the  name  of  Christ  that  he  might  be  the  more 
readily  recognized  as  the  expected  Messiah,4 
who  assumed  the  form  of  Jesus  of  Nazareth, 
who  put  on  the  "  appearance  of  sinful  flesh," 
and  led  a  spirit-life  on  earth,5  to  awaken  there 
the  latent  sense  of  the  divine.6  Many  perplex- 

1  Tertull.  i.  15;  v.  19;  Hipp.  x.  19. 

2  Hippolytus   (assuming    that   the  Philosophumena    dis- 
covered in  1842  is  his)  traces  Marcion's  dualism  wholly  to 
Empedocles  (Philos.,  vii.  29,  30),  though  it  might  as  well 
have  come  from  Persian  and   other  sources  at  that  time. 
Indeed,  he  needed  hardly  to  go  farther  than  his  master  Paul. 
(Rom.  vii.  5-23,  25;  Gal.  v.  17.)     It  is  doubtful  if  Marcion 
speculated  much  on  this  or  other  abstract  points. 

8  Comp.  i  Cor.  ii.  14;  Tertull.  i.  13. 
*  Tertull.  iii.  15,  19;  iv.  7,  19. 
6  i.  19;  iii.  8,  n,  15;  iv.  10. 
«  Iren.  i.  27,  3 ;  Tertull.  i.  9. 


158  PAPIAS 

ing  problems  which  have  disturbed  the  Christian 
world  from  the  beginning  disappear  in  this  hardy 
process ;  not  least,  that  of  a  suffering  God.  As 
the  birth  and  childhood  of  Christ  were  apparent 
rather  than  real,  so  also  his  death.  It  was  the 
futile  vengeance  of  the  Demiurge  against  one 
who  came  to  supplant  him.  The  agonies  of 
the  crucified  God  were  apparent  agonies,  the 
death  a  phantom  death.1  The  flesh,  whether 
of  Christ  or  of  his  followers,  has  no  place  in 
the  resurrection.  The  resurrection  is  a  purely 
spiritual  event.  It  is  the  escape  of  the  spirit 
to  higher  realms ;  its  passage,  through  sphere 
after  sphere,  to  its  heavenly  home.2 

These  strange  doctrines  were  by  no  means 
mere  matters  of  speculation,  or  of  Scripture 
criticism  alone.  They  meant  with  Marcion 
the  purging  of  the  Scriptures  of  their  Jewish 
corruptions,  and  the  purification  of  the  church 
of  all  its  false  dogmas.  He  undertook  this 
reform  unflinchingly.  He  undertook  a  moral 
reform,  also,  with  quite  as  unflinching  a  hand ; 
for  he  held  that  the  precepts  of  the  Gospel  had 
been  neglected,  and  demanded  a  far  more  rigid 
enforcement.  If  matter  is  evil,  and  the  flesh 
sinful,3  then  all  fleshly  pursuits  are  sinful.  He 

1  Tertull.  iii.  8 ;  iv.  42 ;  v.  6. 

2  iii.  3,  4,  8-10,  18,  24;  Epiph.,  H<zr.,  xlii.  4. 
8  Rom.  viii.  3. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        159 

brought  into  sharp  contrast  the  Mosaic  laws  of 
divorce  and  those  of  Jesus,  and  included  mar- 
riage itself  among  the  evils  to  be  reformed.  No 
marriage  was  allowed  in  his  churches,  nor  were 
married  persons  admitted  to  baptism  unless 
first  divorced.1  He  taught  abstinence  from 
meats,  as  well  as  from  the  pleasures  of  the 
world.2  His  continence,  and  the  abstemious- 
ness of  his  disciples,  were  among  the  severest 
charges  which  his  opponents  had  to  bring 
against  him.3  None  led  a  stricter  life  in  those 
days  than  the  followers  of  Marcion,  nor  were 
any  more  ready,  when  the  hours  of  persecution 
came,  to  face  the  horrors  of  martyrdom.4 

However  abstract  and  impracticable  these 
notions  may  seem  to  us,  in  those  days  they  had 
power  to  arouse  the  highest  enthusiasm,  and 

1  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  i.  29 ;  iv.  1 1, 17,  34 ;  v.  7 ;  Clem.  Alex., 
Strom .,  iii.  4. 

2  Tertull.  i.  28 ;  Hipp.  vii.  30. 

8  Tertull.,  Frees.,  30;  Adv.  Marc.  i.  14.  The  church  of  that 
day  seems  to  have  found  this  ascetic  tendency  inconvenient. 
It  did  not  wish  the  Gospel  precepts  to  be  taken  too  seriously. 
These  offenders  were  dubbed  "  Encratites,"  or  "  Abstinents ;  " 
not  a  very  opprobrious  epithet,  one  would  think,  yet  we  find 
all  the  church  historians  talking  as  solemnly  of  Encratites 
as  though  they  were  thieves  or  murderers.  The  Encratites 
figure  conspicuously  among  the  heretical  sects.  (Iren.  i.  28, 
I ;  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  29,  2,  3.) 

*  Tertull.  i.  27 ;  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  v.  16,  21 ;  iv.  15,  46. 


160  PAPIAS 

for  a  time  it  seemed  as  if  they  might  prevail, 
and  the  Christian  church  be  founded  on  dogmas 
even  more  transcendental  than  those  of  Paul. 
The  movement  spread  rapidly.  "As  wasps 
build  their  combs,"  says  Tertullian,  Marcion's 
most  unforgiving  foe,  "  so  do  these  Marcionites 
build  their  churches."  l  In  point  of  fact,  the 
Marcionite  church  became  a  clearly  defined  and 
compact  organization,  and  held  its  own  among 
Christian  churches,  with  its  bishops  and  pres- 
byters, quite  into  the  fifth  century.  A  bishop 
of  the  fifth  century  claims  to  have  converted 
more  than  ten  thousand  Marcionites  in  Syria.2 
A  historian  of  the  same  period  writes  bitterly  : 
"  This  heresy  is  not  only  found  to-day  in  Rome 
and  Italy,  it  has  overrun  Egypt  and  Palestine 
also,  Arabia  and  Syria,  Cyprus  and  the  The- 
baid,  even  Persia,  and  other  regions  far  and 
wide."3 

It  is  worth  noting  here  that  it  was  the  uncom- 
promising asceticism  of  the  Marcionites  quite 
as  much  as  their  theological  dogmas  which 
brought  them  into  disrepute.  The  early  Chris- 

1  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  iv.  5. 

2  Epiph.,  Hcer.,  42.     See  Zahn,  Kanonsgesch.,  i.  595,  607  ; 
Epiph.  xlii.  1,3;  Theodoret  to  Leo,  and  to  Monks  of  Con- 
stantinople, Epis.,  113,  145. 

8  Epiph.,  H<zr.,  xlii.  2.     Note  BB. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        161 

tian  conscience  seems  to  have  encountered  great 
difficulty  in  adjusting  these  nice  points  of  the 
new  ethics,  and  often  found  itself  in  strange 
predicaments ;  not  knowing  at  first  where  to 
draw  the  lines  between  the  customs  of  the 
world  and  the  requirements  of  the  Christian 
Scriptures.  Tertullian  himself,  who  denounces 
Marcion  to-day  for  forbidding  marriage,1  is  found 
to-morrow  denouncing  another  theologian  quite 
as  severely  for  marrying  not  once  only,  but 
twice;  or,  as  this  writer  gracefully  puts  it, 
"marrying  persistently."  2 

Another  interesting  personage,  whose  inde- 
pendent thought  brought  him  into  disrepute 
about  this  same  time,  was  Basilides.3  Judg- 
ing from  the  fragmentary  accounts  which  the 
church  has  handed  down  to  us,  we  infer  that  he 
appeared  first  in  Syria,  and  went  from  there  to 
Egypt,  which  was  apparently  the  scene  of  his 
best  teaching  or  preaching,  and  the  centre  from 
which  emanated  the  many  schools  which  bore 

1  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  i.  29. 

2  Tertull.  adv.  Hermogenem,  i.    "  Nubit  assidue."    Is  not 
this   a  delightful  way  of  characterizing  a  man  who  (the 
chances  are),  after  losing  one  wife,  chose  to  marry  another? 

8  Judging  from  Justin,  ApoL,  i.  26,  Trypho,  35,  compared 
with  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  7,  3,  and  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  vii. 
17,  Basilides's  active  period  must  have  been  between  133 
and  1 60.  Comp.  Harnack,  Chron.>  i.  290. 


162  PAPIAS 

his  name.1  Though  we  have  to  content  our- 
selves with  little  knowledge  of  the  man,  yet 
the  character  of  his  doctrines  appears  plainly 
enough  through  the  hostile  criticisms  which 
they  evoked.  Basilides  was  no  organizer  like 
Marcion,  and  was  less  interested  in  missionary 
or  practical  concerns  than  in  getting  at  the  in- 
terior meaning  of  Christianity  and  its  signifi- 
cance for  the  world.  He  does  not  seem  to  have 
shared  Marcion' s  aversion  to  Judaism,  yet  at 
the  same  time  occupied  himself  little  with  this 
point,  being  influenced  more  by  the  mystic 
tendencies  current  then  in  Alexandria,  than  in 
questions  of  Scripture  criticism.  Christianity 
presented  itself  to  his  mind  less  as  a  historic 
event  than  as  a  spiritual  process,  releasing  man- 
kind from  its  thralldom  by  revealing  the  soul's 
innate  divineness.2  The  eastern  mind  welcomed 
allegory  and  symbolism,  and  few  have  ever  gone 
farther  into  the  realm  of  abstractions  than  Ba- 
silides. The  Jewish  Jehovah  was  to  him  a  very 
anthropomorphic  Deity.  God  was  above  all  per- 
sonification ;  he  was  absolute  Being.  He  could 
not  even  be  defined.  He  was  above  every 
name  that  is  named.3  We  can  assert  only  his 

1  Hipp.  vii.  27 ;  Epiph.,  Hcer.,  xxiii.  I ;  xxiv.  I ;  Euseb., 
Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  7,  3. 

2  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.)  iv.  26.  8  Hipp.  vii.  20. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        163 

existence.  Indeed,  hardly  that.  To  other  phi- 
losophers he  may  be  existence  pure  and  sim- 
ple;1 to  Basilides  he  is  non-existence.  So  at 
least  Basilides' s  historians  insist,  making  much 
sport  of  this  non-existing  Being  who  yet  creates 
existing  worlds.2  This  exalted  Being,  or  Not- 
Being,  must  of  course  be  far  removed  from  the 
actual  universe.  Two  celestial  regions  inter- 
vene, each  with  its  invisible  hierarchy  of  prin- 
cipalities and  powers ;  above  the  Hebdomad  the 
Ogdoad,  above  the  Ogdoad  the  highest  heavens, 
or  realm  of  the  Infinite.3  In  the  Ogdoad  rules 
a  mighty  Archon,  of  great  power  and  splendor, 
knowing  of  nothing  beyond  the  Firmament,  and 
fancying  himself  the  one  God;  in  the  Hebdo- 
mad a  second  and  inferior  Archon,  Jehovah  of 

1  Philo,  Som.,  i.  39.     "  ptvov  elvai  rb  fo." 

2  Hipp.  vii.  21.   "  The  non-existing  God  brought  the  world 
into  non-existence  out  of  non-existing  substances."     Hippo- 
lytus  traces  this,  with  much  of  Basilides's  doctrine  in  general, 
from  Aristotle.     Comp.  Ritter,  History  of  Ancient  Philoso- 
phy, iii.  114;  Hipp.  x.  14. 

I      8  Hipp.  vii.  24;  x.  14;  Eph.  ii.  2.     In  some  accounts  of 

j  Basilides,  or  his  followers,  these  two  or  three  heavens  are 

I  extended  to  365,  with  a  special  ruler,  Abraxas  or  Abrasa, 

the  letters  of  whose  name  give  the  number  365.    (Iren.  i.  24, 

3-7;  ii.  16,  2;  Hipp.  vii.  26;  Philo,  Som.,  i.  22.)     Eph.  iv. 

10,  "above  all  the  heavens,"  gives  the  same  idea  of  an 

indefinite  number  of  heavens,  with  their  hierarchies.     (Eph. 

iii.  10.) 


164  PAPIAS 

the  Jews,  also  ignorant  of  all  above  himself,  and 
also  deeming  himself  the  God  of  Gods.  Each 
of  these  Archons  creates  for  himself  a  son,  who 
sits  at  his  right  hand ;  each  son  being  endowed 
with  a  portion  of  the  eternal  sonship  which 
makes  him  superior  to  the  Archon  himself.1 
Below  these  realms  is  the  kosmos  or  earth  in 
which  we  live,  awaiting  the  divine  awakening. 

All  this  time,  within  this  lower  creation  lay 
a  germ  or  seed  of  the  divine,  the  incipient  son- 
ship  of  the  Highest,  planted  in  certain  souls, 
and  constituting  them  children  of  God.  This 
was  hidden  from  both  Archons.  It  was  the 
great  mystery,  —  "  which  in  other  ages  was  not 
made  known  unto  the  sons  of  men."  2  The  uni- 
verse has  always  carried  at  its  heart  this  mighty 
longing  for  the  infinite:  "For  the  earnest  ex- 
pectation of  the  creature  waiteth  for  the  mani- 
festation of  the  sons  of  God.  .  .  .  For  we  know 
that  the  whole  creation  groaneth  and  travaileth 
in  pain  together  until  now."3  At  last  comes 
the  Gospel,  flashing  like  a  flame  of  light  from 
sphere  to-  sphere,  from  the  highest  to  the 
Ogdoad,  from  the  Ogdoad  to  the  Hebdomad, 
through  every  Principality  and  Power  and  Do- 

1  Hipp.  vii.  26. 

2  Eph.  iii.  4,  9;  I  Cor.  ii.  13. 

8  Rom.  viii.  19,  22;  Hipp.  vii.  27 


THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS        165 

minion.  Each  Archon  learns  the  mystery  with 
dismay,  but  yields  his  power  at  once  to  the  Son 
who  has  revealed  it.  Finally,  this  light  de- 
scends upon  Jesus  the  son  of  Mary,  imparting 
to  him  its  radiance.1  From  Jesus  it  passes  at 
once  to  the  spiritual  portion  of  the  race,  to  the 
sons  of  God  who  have  so  long  awaited  it.  The 
world  endures  till  all  the  elect,  becoming  intui- 
tively conscious  of  their  sonship,  "  follow  Jesus, 
and  hasten  upward,  to  come  forth  purified."  2 
Light  seeks  light.  Man  seeks  heaven  as  his 
native  place.3 

It  will  be  seen  that  in  this  system  the  Son 
of  God,  although  taking  the  form  of  Jesus  of 
Nazareth,  is  no  more  an  actual  man  than  the 
Archons  or  the  spirits  of  the  Ogdoad.  No 
doctrine  of  the  incarnation  having  yet  been 
formulated,  the  relation  of  God  to  Christ  was 
variously  conceived,  and  appears  in  these  dif- 
ferent treatises  under  various  forms  of  union. 

1  A  highly  spiritualized  interpretation   of   the  tradition 
preserved  in  Luke  i.  35. 

2  Hipp.  vii.  25,  26;  x.  14 ;  Iren.  i.  24,  6;  Clem.  Alex.  ii.  3 ; 
ii.  6;  iv.  26. 

3  The  process  of  man's  preparation  or  purification,  accord- 
ing to  this  system,  is  no  slight  one.     He  passes  from  stage 
to  stage  of  being,  apparently ;  his  sins  in  a  previous  lif e  or 
lives  being  expiated  in  this.      His  life  runs  back  into  the 
infinite.     Comp.  Clem.  Alex.  iv.  12. 


166  PAPIAS 

With  Basilides,  as  with  Marcion,  if  not  also  with 
Paul,  it  is  clear  that  the  whole  process  was 
apparent  rather  than  real.  The  highest  hea- 
venly power,  Nous,  descending  upon  the  earth, 
united  himself  with  the  son  of  Mary,  led  his 
earthly  life,  suffered  himself  to  be  apparently 
crucified,  then  returned  again  to  him  that  sent 
him.1  Whatever  Gospels  Basilides  had  before 
him,  his  conception  of  the  Gospel  narrative  was 
purely  mystical.2 

It  is  not  easy  for  us  to  bring  these  strange 
abstractions  back  to  life.  We  do  not  think  in 
Ogdoads  or  Hebdomads  nowadays,  and  it  is 
hard  for  us  to  take  seriously  such  barbaric 
terms.  But  then,  if  we  refuse  it  here,  we  must 
for  the  same  reason  refuse  to  take  the  entire 
religious  thought  of  the  age  seriously.  We 
have  already  found  how  foreign  to  our  beliefs 
were  certain  ideas  of  men  in  best  repute,  and 
on  the  most  solemn  of  religious  themes.3  If 

1  Hipp.  vii.  26 ;  Clem.  Alex.  ii.  8.     According  to  one  ac- 
count, strongly  suggestive  of  caricature,  Basilides  represented 
Jesus  as  allowing  Simon  of  Cyrene  to  carry  his  cross,  and 
then  transfiguring  Simon  into  his  own  likeness,  and  standing 
by  with  a  smile,  as  Simon  was  crucified  in  his  stead.     (Iren. 
i.  24,  4  ;  Epiph.,  ffcer.,  xxiv.  3,  8 ;  Luke  xxiii.  26.) 

2  Note  CC. 

8  Pp.  116-121,  131-135.  Ignatius,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  gives 
some  idea  of  the  difficulties  which  these  heavenly  hierarchies 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        167 

Papias  or  Tertullian  seems  less  fantastic  than 
Marcion  or  Basilides,  is  it  not  rather  a  difference 
in  their  imaginative  or  speculative  habits,  than 
because  the  one  comes  essentially  nearer  than 
the  other  to  the  religious  ideals  of  to-day  ?  If 
we  would  know  our  spiritual  progenitors  at  all, 
we  must  consent  to  take  them  on  their  own 
ground  ;  to  speak  their  language,  and  think  for 
the  moment  their  thoughts. 

This  becomes  still  more  essential  as  we  ap- 
proach another  of  the  noted  thinkers  of  this 
period.  We  have  already  formed  some  idea 
of  the  speculative  tendencies  then  abroad,  and 
can  easily  see  how  such  tendencies  must  have 
been  stimulated  by  the  new  spiritual  pro- 
blems which  Christianity  brought  to  the  front. 
Among  those  most  profoundly  impressed  by 
these  problems,  and  who  seized  them  if  not  in 
their  most  imaginative,  at  least  in  their  most 
poetic  aspects,  was  Valentine.  As  in  previous 
cases,  we  get  our  knowledge  of  the  man  and  his 

caused  the  Christian  mind,  in  the  following  singular  avowal : 
"  For  I  myself,  notwithstanding  my  bonds,  cannot  compre- 
hend heavenly  matters ;  as  the  places  of  the  angels,  and  the 
companies  of  them  under  their  Archons,  and  all  these  things 
seen  and  unseen;  being  still  a  learner  in  such  affairs." 
(Trail.,  v.  2.)  Lightfoot  understands  him  to  say  that  he 
does  understand ;  which  is  even  more  peculiar.  (Apos.  Fathers, 
147.)  It  would  be  more  considerate  to  suppose  him  satirical. 


168  PAPIAS 

writings  only  through  a  hostile  medium,  and  are 
permitted  to  recover  but  few  facts  of  a  life  which 
must  have  been  full  of  excitement  and  interest. 
No  interpretations  of  Christianity,  in  its  hours 
of  freshness  and  bloom,  could  have  greater 
charm  for  us  than  those  of  the  keener-sighted 
and  more  intellectual  of  its  disciples ;  but  un- 
fortunately it  is  precisely  these  which  are  least 
likely  to  have  been  preserved.  Valentine  seems 
to  have  been  a  native  of  Egypt, 1  possibly  of 
Jewish  birth,  to  have  pursued  his  studies  in 
Alexandria,  and  to  have  come  to  Rome  to  teach 
at  about  the  same  time  with  Marcion  himself.2 
The  descriptions  of  his  doctrines  and  those  of 
his  numerous  followers  have  become  so  hope- 
lessly mixed  that  it  is  even  more  difficult  than 
in  other  instances  to  discriminate  between 
master  and  disciple,  and  harder  still  to  interpret 
his  thoughts  into  anything  like  the  language 
of  to-day.  We  can  at  best  only  hint  at  beliefs 
which  had  such  great  vogue,  and  exerted  such 
widespread  influence  upon  the  nascent  Chris- 
tianity, that  they  must  not  be  passed  by  in 
entire  silence. 

To  Valentine,  as  to  Basilides,  the  coming  of 
Christ  was  a  stupendous  moment  in  the  world's 

1  Epiph.,  Hcer.,  xxxi.  2. 

2  About  140-155;  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.>  iv.  n,  i. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS         169 

history ;  the  goal  and  fulfillment  of  its  destiny. 
Ages  had  been  preparing  for  it,  forecasting 
step  by  step  the  supreme  hour  when  the  divine 
essence  in  man,  after  many  sufferings,  should 
recognize  and  rejoin  its  heavenly  source.  These 
foreshadowings  of  the  final  event,  so  far  as  we 
can  reconstruct  them,  are  like  splendid  rehear- 
sals on  a  celestial  stage ;  the  longings,  the  frus- 
trations, the  eventual  attainments,  of  heavenly 
natures  leading  the  way  to  the  great  human 
drama.  In  those  days  there  was  little  to 
impede  the  imagination  in  its  dramatizations ; 
no  cold  scientific  habits,  or  too  definite  histori- 
cal knowledge,  or  over-critical  instincts-;  no 
acquaintance  with  Copernican  or  Galilaean  sys- 
tems, to  forbid  the  creation  of  sphere  beyond 
sphere  as  the  scene  of  these  invisible  transac- 
tions, no  limit  to  the  heavenly  beings  needed  to 
people  those  spheres. 

God,  according  to  this  exposition  of  Chris- 
tianity, is  the  fathomless  abyss  where  thought 
stops.  He  is  Depth,  consorting  with  Silence.1 
He  cannot,  or  will  not,  remain  alone  or  inac- 
tive ;  longs,  indeed,  for  some  object  of  his  love. 
From  him  therefore  issue  successive  emana- 
tions or  self-manifestations ;  series  after  series 

1  Iren.  i.  i,  i. 


i;o  PAPIAS 

of  JEons.  1  There  are  thirty  of  these  highest 
^Eons,  constituting  the  Pleroma,  or  infinite 
Fullness.  Of  these  Nous  alone  (foreshadowing 
Christ  and  Jesus)  knows  the  Father,  revealing 
him  in  due  time  to  the  other  ^Eons.2  The 
first  disturbance  of  the  celestial  harmony  is 
caused  by  the  youngest  of  the  ^Eons,  Wisdom,3 
who  in  her  untimely  longing  for  the  Infinite 
rushes  forth  from  the  Pleroma,  only  to  bring 
into  being  an  abortive  mass  which  is  afterwards 
shaped  into  the  earth.  This  is  the  beginning 
of  evil  in  the  universe.  Great  consternation 
seizes  the  remaining  ^Eons  ;  and  the  lost  har- 
mony is  restored  only  by  the  appearance  of 
Christ  and  the  Holy  Spirit,  completing  the 
mystic  number  of  the  ./Eons,  and  imparting  at 


Originally  a  space  of  time;  or  eternity.  Comp. 
I  Tim.  i.  17;  Heb.  i.  2;  xi.  3;  Tertull.  adv.  Val.  4. 

2  Iren.  i.  i,  i  ;  i.  2,  5;  Hipp.  vi.  29;  vi.  30.  These  thirty 
yEons  appear  in  pairs  :  Nous  and  Alethia,  Logos  and  Zoe, 
Anthropos  and  Ecclesia,  etc.  Epiphanius  gives  more  bar- 
baric names  for  the  ./Eons,  mentioning  at  the  same  time  the 
Greek  equivalents,  (xxxi.  2,  4,  6.)  At  Valentine's  hands 
these  .#Lons  embodied,  we  may  suppose,  abstract  conceptions, 
whether  we  go  the  length  of  Baur  or  not  :  "  Alle  diese  als 
JEonen  hypostasirte  Begriffe  sind  die  Kategorien  unter 
welchen  das  absolute  Wesen  gedacht  werden  muss,  oder  die 
Logik  des  gottlichen  Denkens  selbst."  (Christ.  Gnosis, 
127,  n.) 

8 


THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS        171 

last  to  the  celestial  company  the  knowledge  of 
the  Divine.1 

The  scene  being  now  shifted  to  lower  regions, 
the  Demiurge  appears.  He  is  the  Creator  and 
ruler  in  his  own  sphere,  called  into  being  by  the 
above  catastrophe,  and  an  ignorant  and  uncon- 
scious agent  in  higher  hands  ;  imaging  the  infi- 
nite Powers  in  action  above  him,  and  preparing 
the  way  for  his  own  downfall.  He  is  enthroned 
upon  seven  heavens,  and  fancies  himself  the 
Supreme;  declaring,  "I  am  God,  and  beside 
me  there  is  none  else."  2  His  agent  and  crea- 
ture is  the  spirit  of  evil,  the  Devil,  or  Cosmo- 
crator,3  who  strives  to  keep  man  a  creature  of 
earth.  His  reign  continues  until  the  Son, 
whom  he  has  himself  created,  and  supposes 
wholly  his  own,  and  whom  he  sends  forth  to 
relieve  men's  woes,  heals  those  woes  in  a  higher 
sense,  revealing  the  hidden  mystery,  while  the 
Demiurge,  finding  himself  dethroned,  yields  to 
his  destiny.4 

For  this  great  drama,  as  we  have  seen,  three 
Christs,  or  manifestations  of  the  Christ,  are 
necessary,6  the  last  of  whom  embodies  himself 

1  Iren.  i.  2,  2-5;  Hipp.  vi.  30;  vi.  31. 

2  Iren.  i.  5,  4 ;  Is.  xlv.  5,  6. 
8  Iren.  i.  5,  4 ;  Eph.  vi.  1 2. 

4  Iren.  i.  5,  6 ;  Hipp.  vi.  36. 

5  Nous  or  Monogenes,  Christ,  and  Jesus. 


i;2  PAPIAS 

for  his  human  mission  in  the  son  of  Mary.1  At 
his  appearance,  his  own  disciples,  the  truly  "spir- 
itual," recognize  him  at  once,  are  revealed  in 
their  true  nature,  and  rise  with  him  to  heavenly 
places.2  These  spiritual  beings  are  the  real  hu- 
manity; they  are  "the  salt  of  the  earth,"  and 
have  been  foreshadowed,  like  the  rest,  from  all 
time.3  Their  tragic  struggles  on  earth  are  the 
efforts  of  the  higher  nature  to  purify  itself  from 
alien  elements.  They  are  "  children  of  eternal 
life."  In  one  of  the  few  passages  from  Valen- 
tine's writings  which  have  been  preserved,  he 
pictures  this  struggle  of  imperishable  beings  in 
a  perishable  universe  :  "  Ye  are  immortal  from 
the  beginning,  and  are  children  of  eternal  life ; 
but  ye  were  willing  to  have  death  apportioned 
you,  that  ye  might  spend  and  consume  it,  so 
that  in  you  and  through  you  death  might  die. 
For  when  ye  overcome  the  world,  but  are  not 
yourselves  destroyed,  ye  are  lords  over  crea- 
tion and  over  all  that  is  perishable."  *  Man  is 
bound  to  his  baser  appetites  only  so  long  as  the 
Demiurge  rules  over  him  and  suppresses  his 

1  "  Christ  passed  through  Mary  as  water  flows  through  a 
tube."     Iren.  i.  7,  2 ;  Tertull.  adv.  Val.  27  ;  Hipp.  vi.  35. 

2  Iren.  i.  6,  i. 

8  Anthropos  is  one  of  the  original  ^Eons.     Iren.  i.  i,  I. 
*  Clem.  Alex.  iv.  13. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        173 

consciousness  of  a  higher  estate.  The  earthly 
passions  are  strangers  to  his  heart,  and  treat 
it  as  travelers  do  an  inn,  dwelling  in  it  for  a 
moment,  but  not  regarding  it  as  their  own.  "  It 
seems  to  me  to  fare  with  the  heart  much  as  with 
a  tavern ;  which  is  worn  and  trodden  into  ruts, 
and  is  ofttimes  covered  with  the  filth  of  travel- 
ers who  have  dwelt  there  wantonly;  having 
no  care  of  the  place,  as  belonging  to  others. 
Such  a  place  is  the  heart  so  long  as  no  thought 
is  taken  of  it;  being  unclean  and  the  abode 
of  many  demons.  But  when  he  who  alone  is 
good,  the  Father,  visits  it,  it  becomes  sancti- 
fied, and  full  of  light.  And  he  who  has  such  a 
heart  is  blessed,  and  shall  see  God." l  In  the 
great  consummation  these  varied  elements  re- 
turn to  their  own.  All  that  is  mundane  disap- 
pears. Death  dies.  The  spiritual  regains  its 
home,  and  the  primitive  harmony  is  restored.2 

In  all  this,  if  our  interpretation  can  be  trusted 
at  all,  we  find  a  spiritual  process  throughout ;  a 
phenomenal  world,  in  which  all  that  is  human 
or  earthly  disappears  in  its  ideal  significance. 
Only  in  this  mighty  process  of  the  ages  could 
the  rising  of  humanity  from  its  low  estate,  and 
its  assumption  of  its  better  nature,  be  fitly  typi- 

1  Clem.  Alex.  ii.  20 ;  Hipp.  vi.  34. 

2  Clem.  Alex.  v.  i ;  Iren.  i.  7,  i ;  Tertull.  adv.  Val.  29,  32. 


174  PAPIAS 

fied.  And  the  main  features  of  this  scheme,  it 
is  to  be  remembered,  are  found  by  Valentine 
or  his  school  within  the  letter  of  the  Jewish  or 
Christian  Scriptures.  It  is  the  hidden  meaning 
of  those  holy  books,  disclosing  itself  to  those 
who  have  the  key.  The  sublime  imagery  of 
the  Old  Testament  Prophets,  which  the  Demi- 
urge himself  was  unable  to  interpret,  was  now 
for  the  first  time  disclosing  to  the  initiated  its 
secrets.1  The  writings  of  Evangelists  and  Apos- 
tles, the  "oracles  of  the  Lord"  himself,  had 
their  hidden  sense  as  well,  which  the  "spirit- 
ual "  alone  could  discern.2  Paul  was  their  au- 
thority for  this  :  "  But  we  speak  the  wisdom  of 
God  in  a  mystery,  even  the  hidden  wisdom, 
which  God  ordained  before  the  world  unto  our 
glory :  which  none  of  the  princes  of  this  world 
knew.  .  .  .  But  the  natural  man  receiveth  not 
the  things  of  the  Spirit  of  God :  .  .  .  neither 
can  he  know  them,  because  they  are  spiritually 
discerned.  But  he  that  is  spiritual  judgeth  all 
things,  yet  he  himself  is  judged  of  no  man/'3 
It  is  Paul,  too,  who  says  :  "  It  pleased  the  Father 
that  in  him  the  entire  Pleroma  should  dwell."4 

1  Iren.  i.  3,  6;  i.  8,  I. 

2  i.  8,  i. 

8  i  Cor.  ii.  7,  8,  14,  15 ;  Iren.  i.  8,  3. 
*  Col.  i.  19;  ii.  9;  Iren.  i.  3,  4. 


THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS        175 

It  is  Paul  who  speaks  of  "  thrones,  dominions, 
principalities  and  powers  ;  "  and  of  "the  world- 
rulers  of  this  darkness,  and  the  spirit-hosts  of 
wickedness  in  the  heavenly  places."  l  When 
we  read  in  the  Scriptures,  "The  Lord  God 
formed  man  of  the  dust  of  the  ground,  and 
breathed  into  his  nostrils  the  breath  of  life; 
and  man  became  a  living  soul,"  2  we  are  to 
understand  this  not  of  the  Supreme  Deity,  but 
of  the  Demiurge,  who  could  impart  only  the 
"soul,"  or  animal  powers,  leaving  the  spirit  to 
come  in  due  time  from  the  true  God.  The 
thirty  years  spent  by  Jesus  before  he  entered 
upon  his  ministry  portray  the  thirty  ^Eons  of 
the  Pleroma;  as  also  does  the  Parable  of  the 
Laborers  in  the  Vineyard.3  The  lost  sheep 
of  the  Gospels  typifies  Wisdom,  the  youngest 
JEon,  wandering  beyond  the  Pleroma ;  the  wo- 
man seeking  her  lost  piece  of  silver  denotes 
Enthymesis,  or  the  yearning  for  the  Infinite, 
recovered  by  that  same  ^Eon,  after  many  ages, 
at  the  coming  of  the  Christ.4 

1  Rom.  viii.  38;  Col.  i.  16;  Eph.  vi.  12;  Iren.  i.  4,  5. 

2  Gen.  ii.  7 ;  Iren.  i.  5,  5 ;  Hipp.  vi.  34. 

8  Iren.  i.  3,  i ;  Matt.  xx.  1-6.  Add  the  hours  at  which 
the  laborers  went  into  the  vineyard,  1,3,  6,  9,  n,  and  you 
have  thirty. 

4  Iren.  i.  8,  4;  Luke  xv.  4,  8,  9.  Some  of  these  mystic 
terms,  such  as  "  homoousios,"  to  denote  oneness  of  essence 


176  PAPIAS 

This  sounds  trivial  enough  to  our  modern 
tastes.  Yet  we  may  be  sure  that  it  was  the 
most  trivial  instances  that  were  most  willingly 
preserved ;  and  even  through  these  we  can  dis- 
cern an  earnest  and  determined  search  for  the 
spirit  hidden  beneath  the  letter  of  Christian 
truth.  Nowhere  has  man's  dim  sense  of  some- 
thing divine  as  his  by  right,  or  of  a  higher  world 
to  which  he  belongs  yet  does  not  belong,  found 
bolder  utterance  than  in  these  occult  readings 
of  the  Christian  Scriptures.  Had  the  Valen- 
tinian  Gospel  been  known  among  the  Italian 
painters  of  the  fourteenth  or  fifteenth  century, 
one  scene,  at  least,  would  not  have  remained 
without  its  artist.  The  aged  Simeon,  we  are 
told,  taking  the  infant  Jesus  in  his  arms, 
"  blessed  God,  and  said,  Lord,  now  lettest  thou 
thy  servant  depart  in  peace,  according  to  thy 
word  :  for  mine  eyes  have  seen  thy  salvation." l 
This  was  a  symbol  of  the  Demiurge,  looking 
down  upon  the  child  who  had  come  to  take 
from  him  the  kingdom  which  he  had,  until  then, 
supposed  was  his  own.2 

with  the  divine,  have  held  their  own  in  the  later  Christian 
theology.  (Iren.  i.  5,  i  and  5.  Comp.  Harnack,  Hist,  of  Dog., 
i.  257,  n.  3.) 

1  Luke  ii.  28,  29. 
'     2  Iren.  i.  8,  4.     See  Note  DD. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        177 

Perhaps  I  owe  my  readers  an  apology  for 
leading  them,  thus  unawares,  into  the  deadly 
ambush  of  Gnosticism ;  but  that  name  has  ac- 
quired so  forbidding  a  sound  that  I  must  be 
excused  for  having  postponed  the  mention  of  it 
to  the  last  possible  moment.  Yes,  this  is  Gnos- 
ticism, in  so  far  as  that  many-sided  movement 
can  be  seen  in  the  persons  of  its  most  noted 
exponents.  It  is  no  place  here  to  analyze 
Gnosticism,  or  give  its  history,  but  the  thing 
itself  can  no  more  be  ignored  in  speaking  of  the 
second  century  than  the  presence  of  the  scien- 
tific spirit  in  speaking  of  the  nineteenth.  The 
question  is  not  so  much  to  define  Gnosticism, 
as  to  let  Gnosticism  define  the  age  in  which  it 
appeared.  Gnosticism  was  simply  the  theo- 
logical attitude  of  the  time ;  the  form  in  which 
its  religious  philosophy  chose  to  shape  itself. 
When  the  Roman  empire  in  its  career  of  con- 
quest set  all  religions  and  philosophies  face  to 
face,  bringing  the  worships  and  systems  of  the 
East  into  Rome  itself,  some  startling  results 
were  bound  to  follow ;  and  these  dualistic  and 
allegoric  extravagances  are  only  isolated  in- 
stances of  those  results.  It  would  be  impos- 
sible, if  we  desired,  to  trace  all  the  Gnostic 
schools  back  to  their  sources ;  but  some  lines 
can  be  briefly  pointed  out. 


178  PAPIAS 

Obscure  indications  of  what  was  happening 
even  on  purely  Jewish  soil  are  afforded  by  such 
stories  as  that  of  Simon  the  Sorcerer;  who, 
whatever  his  real  character,  had  a  great  reli- 
gious following  in  Samaria  in  apostolic  times, 
and  was  regarded  as  the  "  Great  Power  of 
God."1  But  other  indications,  much  less  ob- 
scure, appeared  elsewhere,  at  the  same  time. 
Both  Basilides  and  Valentine,  we  must  remem- 
ber, had  some  connection  with  the  schools  of 
Alexandria,  an  intellectual  centre  where  the 
contact  of  classic  philosophies  with  Hebrew 
and  other  oriental  faiths  was  more  marked  and 
fruitful  than  at  any  other  point.  That  Judaism 
had  long  felt,  in  some  measure,  this  rationaliz- 
ing influence,  we  know  very  well ; 2  but  all  other 

1  Acts  viii.    10.      Literally,  "the  Power  of   God  called 
Great;"  as  though  the  highest  of  the  attendant  spirits  of 
Deity.     Simon  was  credited  by  many  of  the  ancient  writers 
with  being  the  fountain-head  of  all  the  Gnostic  sects.     (Jus- 
tin, Apol.,  i.  26;  ii.  15 ;  Iren.  i.  23,  2  ;  ii.  Pref. ;  Hipp.  vi.  7- 
20 ;  Epiph.  i.  2,  i ;  Euseb.  iv.  22,  5 ;  Apos.  Const.,  vi.  7.)     In 
later  history  he  became  a  highly  mythical  personage,  and  is 
regarded  by  many  as  a  purely  imaginary  character.     (Baur, 
Christ.  Gnosis,  303-313  ;  Zeller,  Acts,  i.  250-267.)    But  there 
seems  little  doubt  of  the  existence  of  such  a  leader,  and 
none  at  all  of  the  movement  itself  of  which  he  was  the  tra- 
ditional head. 

2  See  Ecclesiasticus,  Wisdom  of  Solomon,  and  still  later 
Jewish  literature. 


THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS        179 

Hellenistic  tokens  are  but  faint  compared  with 
what  we  find  in  the  writings  of  an  early  con- 
temporary of  Paul,  Philo  the  Alexandrian  Jew.1 
To  Philo,  as  to  other  thoughtful  Jews,  the  lit- 
eral interpretation  of  Hebrew  history,  with  its 
cruelties,  its  idolatries,  and  its  gross  anthropo- 
morphism, had  become  intolerable.  From  this 
the  Greek  and  Roman  fashion  of  dealing  with 
the  gods  of  their  Olympus  2  offered  a  convenient 
and  welcome  escape.  The  Old  Testament  re- 
ceived an  occult  interpretation.  It  was  a  grand 
piece  of  symbolism,  intended  from  the  begin- 
ning to  hide  diviner  truths.  Later  generations, 
troubled  in  their  turn  by  traditional  beliefs  too 
sacred  to  be  renounced  yet  too  unreal  to  be 
longer  retained,  owe  an  immense  debt  to  Philo 
for  having  domesticated  this  spiritualizing  pro- 
cess within  the  Jewish  faith.  At  his  hands  the 
Old  Testament  became  a  splendid  allegory,  be- 
hind which  the  sublimest  tenets  of  philosophy 

1  Aristobulus,  a  Jewish  writer  under  Ptolemy  Philometer, 
about  B.  c.  1 60,  showed  similar  tendencies;  but  few  traces 
of  his  writings  remain.      (Clem.  Alex.  i.  15;  v.  14 ;  vi.  3; 
Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  vii.  32,  16.) 

For  Philo,  consult  Ritter,  Hist,  of  Ancient  Philosophy,  iv. 
407-473;  Hausrath,  Time  of  Apos.,  i.  161-189;  Keim,/<rj«f 
of  Nazara,  i.  276,  etc. ;  Ewald,  Hist,  of  'Israel \  vii.  194,  etc. 

2  Cicero,  De  Natura  Deorum,  ii.  23-28 ;  Boissier,  La  Re- 
ligion Romaine,  ii.  121-147. 


i8o  PAPIAS 

lay  hidden,  and  in  which  Moses  and  the  Patri- 
archs became  types  of  heavenly  virtues,  or  lofty 
metaphysical  ideals.  Judaism  became  the  mouth- 
piece of  Stoic  and  Platonic  philosophy. 

This  process  of  interpretation  once  entered 
upon,  there  is  no  necessary  limit  in  any  direc- 
tion. Jehovah  comes  to  embody  the  highest 
thought  of  Deity.  He  is  the  One  Supreme; 
he  is  the  universe  itself;  he  is  the  All.1  He 
cannot  be  defined,  for  he  has  no  distinctive 
qualities  or  names.  "  He  is  not  of  a  nature  to 
be  described,  but  is  simply  Being."  2  This  Philo 
finds  hidden  in  the  words :  "  Ye  shall  not  make 
with  me  gods  of  silver,  neither  shall  ye  make 
unto  you  gods  of  gold."  3  The  world  has  been 
in  existence,  ideally,  from  the  beginning  of  time. 
As  man  was  created  "  after  the  image  of  God,"  4 
so  this  visible  universe  is  only  an  image  of  the 
archetypal  idea,  or  real  world,  existing  in  the 
mind  of  Deity.5  In  creating  the  visible  world 
he  could  not  act  of  himself,  "for  it  was  not 
lawful  that  the  wise  and  blessed  God  should 
touch  ignorant  and  disorderly  matter."6  But 
there  was  no  lack  of  helpers ;  the  air  being 

1  Philo,  Leg.  Alleg.^  i.  14.       2  Leg.  Alleg.,  i.  15 ;  Som.,  i.  39. 
8  Ex.  xx.  23.  *  Gen.  i.  27. 

5  De  Mund.  Opif.,  4,  6. 

6  Viet.  (^,13;  Sac.  Abel,  28. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        181 

filled  with  incorporeal  beings,  called  by  philoso- 
phers demons,  but  by  the  Scriptures  angels, 
passing  constantly  back  and  forth,  as  seen  by 
Jacob  in  his  dream.1  These  spirits  are  the 
words  of  God,  at  the  head  of  whom  is  the 
Word,  the  Logos,  the  Idea  of  ideas.2  The  Lo- 
gos performs  many  functions,  and  so  receives 
many  epithets  at  Philo's  hands.  He  is  the 
image  of  God,  as  being  the  original  or  arche- 
typal man  ;  3  he  is  the  High  Priest  ;  4  he  is  the 
first-born,5  the  Helper  or  Comforter;6  he  is 
the  Second  God.  "  Why  is  it,"  Philo  asks,  "that 
the  Scripture  says,  '  In  the  image  of  a  god  cre- 
ated he  man  ?  '  as  if  it  were  the  image  of  another 
God,  and  not  himself?  Very  beautifully  and 
wisely  has  this  expression  been  used,"  is  the  re- 


.j  i.  21,  22  ;  De  Mund.  Opif.,  24.  Philo  evidently  feels 
that  there  is  a  loophole  here  for  the  introduction  of  evil  into 
the  world,  always  so  embarrassing  a  problem  for  the  theolo- 
gians. In  speaking  of  the  creation  of  man,  he  says  quite 
seriously  :  "  Most  appropriately,  therefore,  did  God  assign  the 
making  of  this  creature  to  his  lieutenants,  saying,  'Let  us 
make  man  '  (Gen.  i.  26)  ;  so  that  man's  intellectual  achieve- 
ments could  be  ascribed  to  God  alone,  his  sins  to  the  others." 
(Confus.  Ling.,  35;  De  Mund.  Opif.,  24.  Comp.  Plato's  Ti- 
mceus,  41,  42,  68.) 

2  Confus.  Ling.,  8,  28  ;  De  Mund.  Opif.,  6,  46  ;  Leg.  Alleg., 
ii.  21. 

8  Confus.  Ling.,  28.  *  Som.,  i.  37. 

5  Som.,  i.  37.  6  int%  MOS^  ft.  I4. 


182  PAPIAS 

ply  ;  "  for  it  was  impossible  for  anything  mortal 
to  be  made  in  the  image  of  the  most  high  God, 
the  Father  of  all ;  it  could  be  made  only  after 
the  second  god,  his  Logos." 1  The  Scriptures, 
according  to  Philo,  make  a  distinction  between 
the  "  sons  of  men,"  who  build  towers  of  Babel, 
and  the  "sons  of  God,"  who,  though  not  quite 
worthy  perhaps  to  be  called  sons  of  God  him- 
self, are  yet  "virtuous  and  wise,"  and  deserve  to 
be  called  children  of  his  "eternal  image,  his 
most  sacred  Word."  2  The  seventy  elders  who 
saw  the  God  of  Israel  typify  these  higher  souls 
striving  for  the  actual  sight  of  God.3  The  prim- 
itive man  was  formed  of  finest  clay,  receiving 
from  God  a  breath  of  divine  life  which  he  has 
never  wholly  lost.4  When  Abraham  was  led 
forth,  and  bade  "  to  look  towards  heaven,  and 
tell  the  stars,"  it  typified  the  soul  escaping  from 
itself  and  becoming  absorbed  in  God.5 

This  occult  wisdom  which  enables  one  to  dis- 
cover the  hidden  truth  of  things  is  naturally  not 
open  to  all;  it  comes  by  inspiration  to  those 
capable  of  it.  It  comes  in  trances,  such  as  that 

1  Fragment^  625,  quoted  by  Eusebius ;  Confus.  Ling.,  28. 

2  Confus.  Ling.,  28. 

8  Ex.  xxiv.  10;   Confus.  Ling.,  23,  20. 

*  De  Mund.  Of  if.,  47,  51. 

5  Gen.  xv.  5;  Leg.  Alleg.,  iii.  9,  12,  15;  Nom.  Mut.,  4. 


THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS        183 

which  fell  upon  Adam,  or  upon  Abraham,  "  as 
the  sun  was  going  down."  l  The  mind,  in  this 
exalted  state,  receives  direct  notions  of  invisible 
things ;  sacred  mysteries,  not  to  be  imparted 
to  the  uninitiated.  Philo  describes,  with  great 
emotion,  the  rapture  of  the  God-inspired  soul ; 
how,  "raised  up  on  wings  .  .  .  having  passed 
beyond  all  sensible  things,  it  yearns  for  the 
things  of  the  mind;  and  beholding  there,  in 
their  perfect  beauty,  the  patterns  and  ideals  of 
things  perceptible  here  to  the  sense,  it  is  seized 
by  a  sober  intoxication,  like  the  frenzy  of  the 
Corybantes,  only  with  a  nobler  longing,  and  so 
is  borne  upward  to  the  very  verge  of  super- 
sensual  things,  into  the  presence  of  the  great 
king." 2  Indeed,  he  does  not  hesitate  to  de- 
clare, like  Paul,3  that  he  had  himself  shared  in 
these  unspeakable  experiences.4 

This  revived  Platonism,  tinged  with  oriental 
mysticism,  Philo  passed  on  to  more  philosophic 
and  creative  thinkers,  at  whose  hands  it  took 
a  form  even  more  abstract,  and  lasted,  as  the 
Neo-Platonic  School,  quite  into  the  fifth  cen- 

1  Gen.  ii.  21 ;  xv.  12. 

2  De  Mund.  Opif.,  23;  Leg.  Alleg.,  iii.  33;  Cain,  14;  Quis 
Her.,  52,  53. 

8  2  Cor.  xii.  1-4. 

*  De  Migrat.  Abr.,  7,  34.     Note  EE. 


184  PAPIAS 

tury,  counting  no  less  a  personage  than  the  Em- 
peror Julian  among  its  disciples,  and  affording 
a  dignified  close  to  the  long  reign  of  Greek  phi- 
losophy. Certainly,  philosophic  mysticism  could 
hardly  reach  a  higher  point  than  in  the  person 
of  Plotinus,  the  founder  of  the  school,  who  so 
disdained  his  own  bodily  existence  that  he  re- 
fused to  tell  either  his  parents,  his  country,  or 
his  birthday ;  who,  when  asked  to  sit  for  his  por- 
trait, declined  to  leave  to  posterity  an  image  of 
so  base  an  image,  and  who  four  times,  through 
the  intensity  of  his  spiritual  passion,  rose  to 
actual  union  with  God.1  This  touch  of  apparent 
fanaticism  was  only  an  outward  and  incidental 
feature  of  a  singularly  noble  life  and  refined 
system  of  thought,  which  claims  our  attention 
here  as  one  token  the  more  of  the  lofty  themes 
which  were  then  occupying  the  best  minds  of 
the  age.  It  gives  us  the  philosophic  side  of 
the  movement  whose  religious  or  Gnostic  form 
we  have  just  seen  under  the  contact  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

It  cannot  be  said  that  any  direct  connection 
can  be  established  between  Philo  and  the  Gnos- 
tic schools.  The  origin  of  Gnosticism  is  abso- 
lutely obscure,  and  all  that  can  be  done  is  to 

1  A.  D.  205-270.  Porphyrius,  Vita  Plotini,  ch.  1, 10,  23 ; 
Select  Works  of  Plotinus,  Taylor,  pp.  xliii,  Ixviii. 


THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS        185 

point  out  the  relation  of  Basilides  and  Valentine 
to  Alexandria,  and  the  unequivocal  resemblance 
between  many  of  Philo' s  ideas  and  theirs. 
What  Philo  had  done  for  Judaism,  in  disclosing 
its  occult  significance,  these  and  others  were 
easily  led  to  do  for  the  younger  faith  which  was 
making  its  appearance  as  Philo  left  the  stage. 
The  more  easily,  as  the  early  Christians  clung 
so  tenaciously  to  their  Jewish  origin,  and  insisted 
on  discovering  their  own  highest  mysteries 
hidden  beneath  the  words  of  Moses  and  the 
Prophets.  To  the  profane  eye,  it  might  seem 
a  somewhat  subordinate  rdle  to  assign  to  Chris- 
tianity, to  make  it  simply  an  echo  of  the  older 
dispensation  ;  but  this  was  not  the  view  of  the 
age  we  are  studying,  as  we  have  had  abundant 
opportunity  to  note.  Marcion,  indeed  (who  was 
Gnostic  rather  by  courtesy),  made  quick  work 
of  the  whole  Jewish  matter,  casting  it  scorn- 
fully aside  as  unworthy  intelligent  thought; 
but  Basilides  and  Valentine,  with  their  numer- 
ous followers,  welcomed  the  allegorical  method 
with  fervor,  and  gave  it  a  footing  in  Christian 
councils  from  which  it  has  never  yet  been  dis- 
lodged.1 The  extraordinary  aspects  which  it 

1  Marcion  held  many  ideas  in  common  with  the  Gnostics, 
and  so  is  commonly  classed  with  them ;  but  at  the  same 
time  had  an  aversion  to  the  allegorical  method,  and  showed 


i86  PAPIAS 

assumed  at  their  hands,  hardly  more  fantastic, 
after  all,  than  with  many  of  their  mediaeval  and 
modern  imitators,  find  an  easy  explanation  in 
the  more  ingenuous  temper  of  those  primitive 
days,  and  the  disturbed  spiritual  conditions  to 
which  Christianity  at  first  addressed  itself.  It 
would  need  more  explanation  still,  if  Christian 
tenets  had  not  stirred  the  pagan  imagination  to 
novel  flights. 

The  three  names  which  I  have  given  are 
but  a  few  out  of  many  ;  some  later,  some  proba- 
bly earlier  than  themselves.  The  followers  of 
Basilides  and  Valentine  became  subdivided  into 
various  sects,  alongside  of  which,  from  similar  or 
different  sources,  sprang  up  numberless  schools 
known  to  us  hardly  more  than  through  their 
names.  The  earliest  writer  upon  this  subject 
mentions  twenty  -  one  distinct  sects  ; 1  while 
another,  somewhat  later,  gives  twenty -two.2 
Gibbon  knows  of  fifty ; 3  one  of  the  latest  and 
most  thorough  historians  of  Gnosticism  gives 
forty-three.4  We  are  to  think  of  these  sects 
as  spread  over  the  entire  field  of  Christendom, 

little  of  the  speculative  or  idealizing  tendencies  which  chiefly 
characterize  the  movement. 

1  Iren.,  Hcer.,  I. 

2  Hippolytus,  Ref.  Omnium  Haresium. 
8  Gibbon,  Decline  and  Fall,  ch.  xv. 

4  Matter,  Histoire  Critique  du  Gnosticisme. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        187 

and  entering  by  antagonism  or  assimilation  into 
the  life  and  thought  of  all  the  churches.  As 
time  went  on,  it  is  plain  that  their  doctrines, 
in  some  quarters,  at  least,  became  more  and 
more  extravagant.  Charlatans  entered  their 
ranks,  impostors  played  the  hypocrite  under  the 
mask  of  their  convenient  tenets,  voluptuaries 
availed  themselves  of  the  distinction  between 
carnal  and  spiritual  to  indulge  in  forbidden 
pleasures,  and  to  decline  any  such  profession  of 
their  Christian  faith  as  would  involve  the  perils 
of  martyrdom.1  They  seem  also  to  have  bor- 
rowed much  from  the  astrological  superstitions 
of  the  hour,  and  magicians  and  ghost-fanciers 
found  as  many  dupes  among  them  as  they  find 
among  the  worshipers  of  this  enlightened  nine- 
teenth century.2  But  despite  these  vagaries, 
common  to  it  with  many  similar  movements, 
Gnosticism  was  a  power  to  be  reckoned  with 
in  many  directions.  In  the  domain  of  morals, 

1  Iren.  i.  25,  4 ;  i.  6,  2-4;  iii.  18,  5;  Clem.  Alex.  iv.  4;  iv. 
9  ;  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  7,  9  ;  Tertull.,  Scorf.,  15. 

2  Hipp.  v.  21,  etc.;  Origen,  Cels.,  vi.  24.      Anz,  a  recent 
writer  on  this  subject,  traces  the  various  Gnostic  sects  to  an 
original  gnomic  cult  whose  home  was  in  Babylon.     Accord- 
ing to  him  it  provided  occult  formulae  for  guiding  the  soul 
through  the  seven  planetary  spheres,  with  their  seven  hostile 
Archons,  or  doorkeepers,  up  to  the  highest  heaven.    ( Ur- 
sprung  d.  Gnosticismus.)     Comp.  Iren.  i.  21,  5. 


i88  PAPIAS 

apart  from  certain  aberrations,  it  advocated  a 
system  of  asceticism  too  exacting  to  be  popu- 
larly accepted,  yet  which  reappeared  later  in  the 
rigors  of  monasticism  ;  in  the  field  of  worship, 
it  contributed  more  than  its  share  to  the  hym- 
nology  and  ritual  of  the  young  church  ; l  while 
it  was  the  source  apparently  of  much  of  the 
magic  ceremonial  which  has  held  its  place  with 
such  singular  persistency  in  Christian  worship.2 
Most  important  of  all,  however,  and  the  ser- 
vice by  which  it  will  be  longest  remembered, 
is  the  light  it  throws  upon  the  theological 
speculations  out  of  which  the  Catholic  theology 
was  born. 

It  will  be  clear  from  the  above,  I  think,  that 
Gnosticism  has  little  claim  to  be  called  a  system. 
There  is  but  slight  proof  that  these  various 
schools  held  any  conscious  relation  to  each 
other,  or  recognized  any  common  fellowship. 
It  is  doubtful  even  whether  they  had  any  com- 
mon name,  until  this  name  was  conferred  upon 
them  by  the  historians  of  heresy,  for  purposes 
of  classification.3  Their  prominent  character- 

1  Iren.  i.  21,  3  and  5;  Hipp.  v.  10;  vi.  47;   Canon  Mura- 
tori,  4;  Tertull.,  Car.  Christi,  17.     See  Matter,  ii.  264,  351; 
Harnack,  Hist,  of  Dog.,  i.  241 ;  also,  Pistis  Sophia. 

2  Iren.  i.  21,  3-5  ;  Clem.  Alex.  vii.  17;  Renan,  J-fist.,  vi. 
154;  vii.  144. 

»  Note  FF. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        189 

istic  was  held  to  be  the  claim  to  an  occult  know- 
ledge of  the  Christian  revelation.  The  Gnostic 
is  he  who  knows  ;  who  has  a  profounder  insight 
into  the  eternal  secrets  than  the  unillumined 
worshiper;  and  through  this  knowledge  gains 
immediate  access  to  Deity.  This  mystic  insight 
into  things  divine  became  a  contagious  doctrine, 
and  the  first  impulse  evidently  was  to  insist 
upon  it  as  the  distinguishing  attribute  of  the 
true  Christian.  The  leading  Christian  Father  of 
the  end  of  the  century,  Clement  of  Alexandria, 
so  far  from  resenting  the  name  Gnostic,  claims 
it  for  himself  and  all  of  his  faith.  The  Gnostic, 
according  to  him,  is  the  true  Christian.  He  is 
the  only  one  who  penetrates  to  the  inner  know- 
ledge of  things  ;  and  by  this  knowledge  over- 
comes the  world,  and  becomes  one  with  God.1 
For  a  moment  Gnosticism  seemed  destined  to 
implant  itself  in  the  bosom  of  Christianity.2 
Afterwards  the  tendency  fell  under  suspicion, 
and  this  very  claim  of  superior  knowledge  was 
denounced,  and  became  the  convenient  desig- 

1  Clem.  Alex.  i.  i ;  i.  6;  i.  13 ;  ii.  17  ;  ii.  20;  iv.  17-22. 

2  Tertull.,  Prax.,  7,  8.     To  see  the  sort  of  influence  which 
Gnostic  thought  was  exerting  upon  the  inchoate   Christian 
theology,  it  is  only  necessary  to  read  a  passage  like  this, 
•where  Tertullian  is  proving  that  the  Son  can  issue  from  the 
Father,  yet  remain  the  same  as  the  Father,  and  has  to  bor- 
row Valentine's  ^Eons  for  his  own  purposes. 


I9o  PAPIAS 

nation  of  the  many  groups  which  were  wander- 
ing from  the  trodden  paths. 

In  later  days,  as  is  well  known,  Gnosticism 
was  declared  a  heresy  ;  and  it  may  be  expected 
of  me,  before  dropping  the  subject,  to  draw  the 
exact  lines  which  separate  it  from  Christianity. 
Some  of  my  readers  have  already  taken  excep- 
tion, perhaps,  to  my  treating  the  movement  as 
if  it  were  really  part  and  parcel  of  Christian 
history.  It  must  be  remembered,  however,  that 
we  are  not  treating  Christian  history  as  a  whole ; 
we  are  standing  within  the  second  century,  to 
see  what  was  happening  then  and  there ;  and 
with  the  best  purpose  in  the  world,  I  can  see  no 
distinction  whatever  at  that  time  between  the 
three  leaders  here  mentioned  and  other  Christian 
teachers.  They  had  their  opponents,  no  doubt, 
from  the  start.  Justin  Martyr  hated  Marcion 
with  a  godly  hatred,  and  declared  his  followers 
impious  heretics.  At  the  same  time  he  admits 
that  they  "are  called  Christians,"  just  as  Phari- 
sees and  Sadducees  were  called  Jews  ;  the  one 
case  seeming  to  him  quite  as  unrighteous  as 
the  other.1  The  Gnostic  was  worse  than  other 
heretics,  it  appears,  mainly  because  he  denied 
that  the  Messiah  would  reign  in  Jerusalem  a 
thousand  years.  The  other  Fathers,  haters  of 

1   Trypho,  35,  80. 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        191 

heretics  as  they  were,  all  acknowledged  that  the 
prominent  Gnostics  claimed  to  be  Christian, 
and  were  commonly  called  so.  Perhaps  none 
of  them  puts  the  case  with  more  tell-tale  sim- 
plicity than  Tertullian.  "  As  they  are  heretics," 
he  says,  "  they  cannot  be  Christians,  .  .  .  and 
so  have  no  right  to  the  Christian  writings  ;  so 
that  we  may  properly  say  to  them :  Who  are 
you  ?  When  and  whence  did  you  come  ?  What 
have  you  to  do  with  my  property,  as  you  are 
none  of  mine  ?  You,  Marcion,  by  what  right  do 
you  cut  my  wood  ?  You,  Valentine,  who  gave 
you  leave  to  turn  my  streams  aside  ?  Apelles, 
why  are  you  removing  my  landmarks  ?  This  is 
my  property ;  I  have  held  it  a  long  time ;  I  held 
it  first ;  I  have  safe  title-deeds  from  the  origi- 
nal owners ;  I  am  the  heir  of  the  Apostles."  * 
The  simple  fact  is  that  these  men  considered 
themselves  Christians,  and  were  called  so  by 
others ; 2  they  had  their  churches,  bishops, 
Scriptures,  and  worship,  and  are  charged  by 
their  opponents  with  aspiring  to  high  ecclesias- 
tical positions ; 3  they  base  their  doctrines  on 
the  Christian  Scriptures  ; 4  one  of  them  is  the 

1  Tertull.,  Press.,  37. 

2  Justin,  Apol.,  i.  26 ;  Trypho,  35,  80 ;  Iren.  iv.  33,  3. 

3  Iren.  iv.  26,  3  ;  Tertull.  Pras.,  30,  32  ;  Val.  4. 

4  Iren.  i.  Pref. ;  i.  3,  6 ;  i.  8,  5 ;  iii.  1 5,  2. 


192  PAPIAS 

first  scholar  known  to  us  to  edit  a  Gospel,  or 
collect  the  Epistles  of  Paul ; l  another,  accord- 
ing to  his  critics,  wrote  a  commentary  on 
the  Gospels  in  twenty-four  books.2  It  would 
have  been  difficult  for  any  of  their  opponents 
at  that  moment  to  have  brought  forward  more 
satisfactory  credentials  than  these.  If  it  is 
claimed  that  they  were  pronounced  heretics  in 
the  end,  and  cast  out  of  fellowship  by  the  lead- 
ing churches  of  the  time,  this  cannot  be  denied. 
But  what  shall  we  say  of  Tertullian,  who  aban- 
doned the  church  because  it  would  not  come 
over  with  him  into  Montanism  ? 3  Or  of  Justin 

1  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  iv. ;  v. 

2  Basilides.     Comp.   Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  7,  7 ;  Clem. 
Alex.  iv.  12. 

8  Tertull.,  Prax.,  i. ;  De  Pud.,  i.  I,  21 ;  Jej.t  13 ;  Casf., 
7  ;  Jerome,  De  Vir.  ///.,  53.  The  Montanists  were  the  fol- 
lowers of  Montarms,  a  Phrygian  reformer  and  enthusiast, 
who  lived  about  170.  He  claimed  that  the  prophetic  gifts 
recognized  in  apostolic  times  (i  Cor.  xii.  10,  28;  xiv.  I,  5, 
31)  still  existed;  and  that  the  Paraclete  promised  by 
Christ  (John  xiv.  16,  26;  xvi.  7)  had  really  come.  The 
movement  resembled  somewhat  the  Second  Advent  excite- 
ments of  later  days,  and  brought  to  a  sharp  issue  the 
question  whether  divine  inspiration  could  still  be  present  in 
the  church,  or  had  disappeared  with  the  Apostles.  With  this 
went,  of  course,  the  question  whether  there  could  still  be 
inspired  writings ;  a  dispute  which  was  speedily  settled  by 
the  establishment  of  a  New  Testament  Canon.  Comp. 
Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.>  v.  14-18;  Epiph.,  Har.,  xlviii.  i  ;  also, 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        193 

Martyr,  Papias,  and  Irenaeus,  who  were  de- 
clared heretics  for  their  millennial  errors  ?  Or 
of  Tatian,  cast  out  for  his  asceticism  ?  Judged 
by  the  final  decisions  of  the  church,  when  doc- 
trines were  at  last  established,  every  one  of 
these  church  Fathers  fell  into  heresies  quite 
as  perilous  to  the  faith  as  the  speculative  errors 
of  Gnosticism.  It  is  quite  superfluous  at  this 
distance  to  attempt  to  determine  their  degrees 
of  error,  or  even  to  insist  upon  the  name  of 
heretic  at  all. 

At  that  time,  it  must  be  remembered,  there 
could  be  no  genuine  heresy,  for  there  was  no 
established  faith.  No  Councils  had  yet  rendered 
their  decisions.  There  was  no  accepted  Chris- 
tian canon.  There  was  no  Christian  Church. 
Churches  there  were,  scattered  through  Asia 
Minor,  Palestine,  Greece,  Rome,  Africa,  and 
Gaul ;  but  no  Church ;  no  one  organization 
including  them  all ;  no  single  head ;  no  full 
consciousness  of  unity.1  We  are  witnessing 

Holtzmann,  Einleit.^  118;  Harnack,  Hist,  of  Dog.,  ii.  95- 
108. 

1  The  term  "catholic  church "  (universal  church)  begins 
to  be  heard  about  this  time.  In  earlier  hours  "  the  church  " 
seems  to  have  been  conceived  of  only  as  an  ideal  gathering 
of  believers,  to  be  realized,  like  all  else,  in  the  coming  king- 
dom. (Eph.  i.  10,  22,  23;  Teaching  of  Twelve  Apos.,  9,  10.) 
The  word  "  catholic  "  is  found  first  in  Ignatius,  though  prob- 


194  PAPIAS 

in  these  very  struggles,  and  the  dissensions 
which  they  reveal,  the  first  motives  for  a  com- 
pacter  union.  The  sense  of  unity,  however 
feeble,  is  beginning  to  assert  itself,  though 
writers  differ  as  to  the  tests  to  be  applied.1 
Before  many  years  there  will  plainly  be  some 
established  tribunal 'before  which  all  teachers 
of  novel  or  false  doctrines  must  appear  and  give 
account  of  themselves.  But  meantime  all  doc- 
trines have  their  chance.  If  Justin  and  Irenaeus 
have  a  right  to  their  views  of  the  great  Christian 
mysteries,  so  have  Basilides,  and  Valentine, 
and  Bardesanes,  and  Saturninus.  Fortunately 
these  great  questions  could  not  be  decided  in  a 
moment ;  and  the  world's  philosophy  had  got 
well  inside  the  church  before  the  gates  were 
closed.2 

ably  without  its  later  technical  meaning.  (Symrn.,  viii.  2 ; 
also,  Mart,  of  Poly  carp,  viii.  i.)  Irenaeus  uses  it,  though 
not  familiarly,  (i.  10,  3.)  Origen  still  speaks  more  easily  of 
"  churches "  than  "  the  church."  (Cels.,  v.  59;  vi.  21.)  Also 
Tertull.,  Press.,  26,  30  ;  Clem.  Alex.  vii.  17. 

1  Tertull.,  Pras.,  20,  21,  28,  32,  6;  Iren.  iii.  2,  i ;  iii.  3,  i ; 
iii.  4,  i  ;   v.  20,  i ;   Tertull.  adv.  Marc.   iv.   4 ;  Clem.  Alex. 
vii.  17. 

2  The  exact  relation  of   Gnosticism  to  Christianity  has 
always  been  a  subject  of  dispute.     Some  writers  represent 
it  as  coming  into  full  existence  only  on  Christian  soil  (Baur, 
Christ.  Gnosis ;  Schwegler,  Nachapos.Zeitalter,  ii.  231);  oth- 
ers that  it  has  no  necessary  connection  with  Christianity,  but 


THEOLOGICAL  SPECULATIONS        195 

I  do  not  mean  to  intimate  that  there  was  any 
moment  when  these  Gnostic  ideas  were  received 
with  universal  favor.  Indeed,  the  opposition  to 
them  began  at  once.  By  the  end  of  the  cen- 
tury, the  great  magnates  of  the  church  had 
entered  upon  an  unsparing  campaign  against 
the  whole  mystic  crowd.  The  vagaries  of  the 
followers,  if  not  of  the  leaders,  gave  ample  field 
for  satire  and  caricature.  The  very  mention  of 
^Eons  or  of  the  Pleroma  filled  the  good  Fathers 
with  mirth.  "  lu,  lu,  Pheu,  Pheu  !  "  cries  Ire- 
naeus ;  "  for  well  may  we  strike  the  tragic  note 
at  this  audacity;  at  these  unblushing  names 
coined  for  a  system  of  falsehood."1  He  pro- 
fesses to  be  much  affected  at  the  sorrows  of 
Acamoth,2  sitting  and  weeping  over  her  exile 

has  a  far  remoter  origin.  (Matter,  Hist.  Crit.,  i.  259,  399.) 
Neander  treats  it  as  a  reaction  of  the  antique  principle 
against  the  Christian,  but  gives  the  great  Gnostic  systems 
a  wholly  sympathetic  treatment.  (Hist.,  i.  366,  etc.)  Renan 
regards  Gnosticism  as  a  species  of  croup  or  measles,  to  which 
the  infant  Christendom  was  of  necessity  exposed,  and  from 
which  it  had  reason  to  congratulate  itself  for  having  escaped 
on  such  easy  terms.  (Hist.,  vi.  140.)  Harnack,  with  less  hu- 
mor, perhaps,  but  keener  historic  sense,  calls  the  Gnostics, 
out  and  out,  the  "  theologians  of  the  first  century,"  /.  e.,  first 
century  of  the  Christian  Church.  (Hist.  Dog.,  i.  227.) 

For  Pistis  Sophia,  a  recently  discovered  Gnostic  writing, 
see  Note  GG. 

1  Iren.  i.  n,  4.  a  Same  as  Sophia,  p.  170. 


196  PAPIAS 

from  the  Pleroma,  and  suggests  that  all  the 
seas,  fountains,  and  rivers,  and  especially  the 
hot-springs,  flowed  from  her  tears.1  Tertullian 
considered  Bythos  and  Sige,  Nous  and  Veritas, 
as  the  first  four-in-hand  known  to  history ;  was 
evidently  anxious  lest  the  ^Eons,  from  their  stu- 
pendous number,  should  not  be  adequately 
housed  in  the  heavenly  regions  ;  and  imagined 
the  celestial  palaces  piled  up,  story  upon  story, 
and  labeled,  no  doubt,  "rooms  to  let."2  The 
amenities  so  familiar  to  all  theological  literature 
were  visited  freely  upon  the  great  leaders  of  the 
movement,  especially  upon  Marcion,  whose 
successful  propaganda  of  his  doctrines  exposed 
him  to  peculiar  virulence.  The  epithets  applied 
to  him  form  an  instructive  theologic  anthology. 
Justin  Martyr  called  him  a  devil ; 3  Polycarp, 
"  the  firstborn  of  Satan ; "  *  Irenaeus  a  snake ; 5 
Hippolytus,  a  hound ; 6  Rhodo,  a  wolf  ; 7  Epi- 
phanius,  a  viper;8  Cyprian,  a  blasphemer;9 

1  Iren.  i.  4,  4.     Comp.  Orig.,  Celsus,  v.  55. 

2  Tertull.  adv.  Val.  7. 
8  Apol.,  i.  26 ;  i.  58. 

*  Iren.  iii.  3,  4 ;  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  14,  7. 

5  i-  27,  3. 

6  P kilos.,  vii.  30. 

7  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  v.  13,  4. 

8  Har.,  xlii.  14. 

9  Concilium  Carthag.,  52. 


THEOLOGICAL   SPECULATIONS        197 

Tertullian,  at  different  moments  of  his  wrath, 
a  monster,  a  gnawing -mouse,  and  a  cuttle- 
fish.1 

Meantime,  despite  all  vituperation  and  excom- 
munications, the  new  doctrines  got  a  hearing 
everywhere,  and  left  hardly  a  single  region 
unvisited.  The  following  century  found  Mar- 
cionites  and  Valentinians  from  Gaul  to  Africa.2 
The  several  historians  of  heresy  enumerate  as 
many  sects  as  churches,  and  intimate,  one  after 
another,  that  the  worst  of  the  task  is  still  to 
be  undertaken.3  In  the  fourth  century,  during 
the  Arian  controversy,  Gnostics  still  existed 
in  Gaul,  Spain,  and  Aquitania,  and  still  troubled 
the  faithful  by  their  over-zealous  asceticism.4 
In  the  sixth  century  there  was  still  necessity 
for  Byzantine  legislation  against  the  Marcion- 
ites.6 

Our  chief  interest  in  Gnosticism,  however, 
is  hi  its  beginnings,  before  it  has  yet  been  pro- 
nounced an  outcast,  and  while  it  is  still  fighting 
on  equal  terms  against  the  early  traditions,  and 
luring  the  Christian  mind  so  resistlessly  into 

1  Marc.  i.  i ;  ii.  20. 

2  Justin,  ApoL,  i.  26 ;  Trypho,  35 ;  Tertull.  adv.  Val.  i. ; 
Iren.  i.  13,  7 ;  iv.  Pref. 

8  Irenaeus,  Tertullian,  Hippolytus. 

4  Phil  aster  de  H(zresibus>  Ixxxiv. 

5  Matter,  ii.  314. 


198  PAPIAS 

the  regions  of  abstract  speculation.  Before  it 
can  be  banished  from  the  churches,  its  work  is 
accomplished.  For  more  than  a  century,  as  we 
have  seen,  Christianity  has  been  so  steeped  in 
allegory  and  mysticism  that  it  can  never  be 
quite  the  same  again.1 

i  Note  HH. 


CHAPTER  VI 

THE   MYSTIC    GOSPEL 

CHRISTIANITY  had  done  its  best,  as  we  have 
seen,  to  purge  itself  of  the  virus  of  Gnosticism. 
But  it  was  too  late.  It  might  cast  out  its  Mar- 
cions  and  Valentines,  but  it  could  not  undo  the 
work  they  had  wrought.  Gnosticism  had  be- 
come bone  of  its  bone.  To  read  the  pages  of 
what  was  soon  to  be  known  as  the  New  Testa- 
ment is  to  come  upon  these  hated  doctrines 
again  and  again.  They  mark  especially  all  the 
later  books,  bringing  them  into  vivid  contrast 
with  the  earlier.  How  unlike  the  Jesus  of  the 
Galilaean  Gospels  is  the  "Christ  Jesus,  who, 
being  in  the  form  of  God,  thought  it  not  rob- 
bery to  be  equal  with  God :  but  made  himself 
of  no  reputation,  and  took  upon  him  the  form 
of  a  servant,  and  was  made  in  the  likeness  of 
men." l  What  place  could  be  found  in  Matthew 

1  Phil.  ii.  5-7.  Baur  finds  in  this  passage  a  distinct  remi- 
niscence of  the  Valentinian  episode  of  the  ./Eon  Sophia,  de- 
scribed p.  170.  (Paulus,  ii.  51.) 


200  PAPIAS 

or  Mark  for  this  language  ?  "  Who  is  the  image 
of  the  invisible  God,  the  firstborn  of  every  crea- 
ture :  for  by  him  were  all  things  created,  that 
are  in  heaven,  and  that  are  in  earth,  visible  and 
invisible,  whether  they  be  thrones,  or  domin- 
ions, or  principalities,  or  powers.  .  .  .  And  he  is 
before  all  things,  and  by  him  all  things  consist. 
...  In  him  dwelleth  the  whole  Pleroma  of  the 
Godhead  bodily."  l  Or  where  could  this  come 
in  ?  "  Who  being  the  brightness  of  his  glory, 
and  the  express  image  of  his  person,  and  up- 
holding all  things  by  the  word  of  his  power, 
when  he  had  by  himself  purged  our  sins,  sat 

1  Col.  i.  15-17;  ii.  9.  The  moment  attention  is  directed 
to  this  point,  passages  are  recalled  throughout  Paul's  Epis- 
tles which  bear  this  same  stamp,  showing  how  early  the 
vague  movement  began  which  received  afterwards  the  name 
of  Gnosticism.  The  second  chapter  of  the  First  Epistle  to 
the  Corinthians  might  stand  as  the  Preface  to  any  Gnostic 
treatise,  (i  Cor.  ii.  6-16.)  The  Valentinians  seem  to  have 
found  Eph.  iii.  14-18  very  serviceable  for  their  purposes; 
and  might  equally  well  have  quoted  Rom.  viii.  38, 39.  (Hipp, 
vi.  34.)  Sophia  and  Gnosis  figure  in  i  Cor.  i.  5,  20,  30; 
ii.  4,  6;  viii.  i,  7 ;  xiv.  6;  Rom.  xv.  14,  and  elsewhere.  Ac- 
cording to  Gnostic  writers,  the  familiar  benedictions,  "To 
whom  be  glory  for  ever  and  ever,"  and  "  World  without  end," 
are  an  avowal  of  their  faith.  These  words  simply  proclaim 
the  glory  of  the  JEons,  and  should  read:  "To  whom  be 
glory,  unto  the  JEons  of  ^Eons ; "  or,  "  To  all  the  genera- 
tions of  the  JEon  of  ^Eons."  (Iren.  i.  3,  i.  Comp.  Gal.  i.  5 ; 
Eph.  iii.  21.) 


THE   MYSTIC   GOSPEL  201 

down  on  the  right  hand  of  the  Majesty  on  high ; 
being  made  so  much  better  than  the  angels, 
as  he  hath  by  inheritance  obtained  a  more 
excellent  name  than  they." 1  Or  this  ?  "  His 
name  is  called  The  Word  of  God.  .  .  .  And  he 
hath  on  his  vesture  and  on  his  thigh  a  name 
written,  King  of  Kings,  and  Lord  of  Lords."  2 
Strange  reading  this,  also,  for  those  who  know 
the  death  and  resurrection  of  the  Master  only 
as  narrated  by  the  early  Gospels  :  "  Put  to  death 
in  the  flesh,  but  quickened  by  the  Spirit :  by 
which  also  he  went  and  preached  unto  the  spirits 
in  prison;  .  .  .  and  is  gone  into  heaven,  .  .  . 
angels  and  authorities  and  powers  being  made 
subject  unto  him."3 

It  must  be  confessed,  however,  that  these  are 
but  fragmentary  and  most  inadequate  tokens  of 
a  great  spiritual  movement.  Is  there  nothing 
more  to  show  ?  Does  nothing  remain  but  these 
scanty  citations,  or  the  recriminations  of  hostile 
theologians,  to  mark  an  agitation  which  stirred 
the  young  Christian  Church  so  profoundly? 
Unfortunate,  indeed,  for  the  student  of  reli- 
gious history,  if  this  is  really  so. 

Happily,  if  appearances  do  not  deceive  us,  we 
are  not  so  badly  off.  Just  as  the  three  earlier 

i  Heb.  i.  3,  4.  2  Rev.  xix.  13,  15. 

8  i  Pet.  iii.  18,  19,  22 ;  iv.  6.     See  p.  61  n. 


202  PAPIAS 

Gospels  were  assuming  their  final  shape,  and  re- 
ceiving the  sanction  of  the  churches,  a  fourth, 
whose  unwonted  form  betrays  a  wholly  dissimi- 
lar origin,  is  added  to  the  number.  We  can 
only  guess  at  its  exact  source.  At  a  time  when 
nearly  all  Christian  writings  were  virtually  anon- 
ymous, we  cannot  complain  if  this  also  shows 
but  little  trace  of  its  authorship.1  From  what 
school  of  thinkers  it  comes,  however,  there  can 
be  little  question.  Its  opening  verses  reflect 
familiar  meditations,  and  carry  us  at  once  into 
a  religious  atmosphere  which  we  have  learned 
to  associate  with  Alexandria.  We  cannot  be 
surprised  at  this.  If  the  Jewish  mind  had  been 
so  influenced  by  Greek  philosophy,  how  much 
more  the  Christian,  with  new  and  strange  pro- 
blems on  its  hands  as  to  the  relation  of  the 
human  and  the  divine.2  To  the  Jew,  these 

1  Except  seven  Epistles  of  Paul,  there  are  no  New  Testa- 
ment books  on  whose  authorship  the  majority  of  critics  are 
agreed. 

2  Comp.  pp.  178-183.     The  indications  of  Alexandrian 
influence  in  the  New  Testament  are  obvious,  chiefly  in  the 
Epistles  attributed  to  Paul,  but  elsewhere  as  well.     Comp. 
Heb.  i.  3-8;  xiii.  5;  Rev.  xix.  13;  I  John;  Acts  xviii.  24; 
xix.  i;  i  Cor.  i.  12;  iii.  4,  6;  Colossians,  Ephesians,  Philip- 
pians,  entire.     In  Heb.  xiii.  5,  a  Scripture  saying  is  quoted 
which  it  is  impossible  to  find  exactly  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  which  occurs  literally  in  Philo,  Confus.  Ling.,  32. 


THE   MYSTIC  GOSPEL  203 

speculations  threw  light  upon  a  grand  historic 
past ;  to  the  Christian,  they  offered  a  splendid 
interpretation  of  incidents  and  truths  still  fresh 
in  mind.  The  eternal  Word,  the  only-begotten 
Son  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  whom  Philo 
could  depict  with  the  unimpassioned  indiffer- 
ence of  a  philosopher,  becomes  for  the  Chris- 
tian soul  a  sublime  reality.  It  has  taken  flesh, 
and  dwelt  among  men.  The  drama  of  ages  has 
reached  at  last  its  fulfillment.  How  inadequate 
for  the  portrayal  of  this  celestial  scheme  must 
the  simple  Galilaean  chronicles  have  appeared, 
with  which  till  then  the  church  had  been  con- 
tent. Plainly,  another  Gospel  must  stand  by 
their  side,  to  reveal  the  divine  significance  of 
what  they  had  treated  as  purely  earthly  events. 
We  must  not  pretend  to  more  knowledge 
of  this  unknown  writer  or  his  origin  than  we 
really  possess.1  It  is  only  conjecture  that  con- 
nects him  directly  with  Alexandria,  or  indeed 
with  any  special  locality  or  circle ;  and  we  must 
rest  content  with  marking  the  close  affinities 
of  thought  and  expression  between  the  Fourth 

1  A  second  century  tradition,  not  earlier  than  175,  ascribes 
this  Gospel  to  the  Apostle  John ;  but  although  accepted  by 
the  Christian  Church  for  generations,  the  tradition  can  have 
no  other  critical  weight  than  belongs  to  an  early  conjecture. 
This  question  will  come  up  at  a  later  point. 


204  PAPIAS 

Gospel  and  the  Alexandrian  School.1  As  lit- 
tle do  we  know  how  far  the  author  was  indebted 
to  the  older  Gospels  for  any  of  his  historic  mate- 
rial. There  is  certainly  no  sign  of  antagonism 
on  his  part,  nor  of  any  conscious  purpose  to  sup- 
plement or  correct  them.  One  wonders,  indeed, 
whether  he  even  knew  of  their  existence,  so 
little  does  he  hold  to  their  narrative,  or  trouble 
himself  to  show  where  he  deviates  from  it.  The 
deviations  are  profound,  and,  if  reconcilable  at 
all  with  the  primitive  accounts,  have  never  yet 
been  reconciled.2  At  the  same  time,  the  in- 

1  Many  interesting  indications  point  to  Ephesus  as  the 
possible  source  of  the  Fourth  Gospel ;  thus  taking  us  back 
into  the  regions  where  Papias  was  laboring,  and  bringing 
into  immediate  contrast  the  two  lines  of  thought  and  faith 
which  the  Christian  Church  was  following  at  the  same  mo- 
ment side  by  side.    We  have  already  noted  the  signs  of  close 
relations  between  Alexandria  and  Asia  Minor  at  an  early 
period,  as  shown  in  Acts  xviii.  24-28 ;  xix.  i.    Similar  tokens 
are  found  in  the   Epistles   to   Colossians   and   Ephesians 
(whether  the  title  is  genuine  or  not)  written  for  Asia  Minor 
communities ;  also  in  I  Tim.  i.  3,  4 ;  Acts  xx.  4.     That  Asia 
Minor  was  the  scene  of  much  spiritual  turmoil,  and  the  cen- 
tre of  many  of  the  religious  disturbances  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, is  a  well-known  fact ;  and  this  would  certainly  make  it 
a  natural  source  for  this  Gospel,  if  the  historical  proofs  were 
stronger.      See  Weizsacker,  Apos.  Age,  ii.  169,  170;    Har- 
nack,  Chron.,  661,  etc.;  Pfleiderer,  Urchrist.,  778;  Jiilicher> 
Einleit.,  259. 

2  Much  of  the  material  from  which  the  first  three  Gospels 


THE   MYSTIC  GOSPEL  205 

genuous  and  occasionally  realistic  character  of 
the  new  narrative  is  too  marked  to  allow  us  to 
suppose  that  the  writer  is  inventing  his  story, 
or  even  wholly  subordinating  the  outward  events 
to  his  spiritual  theme.1  He  bases  his  Gospel 
upon  what  he  believes  to  be  actual  facts ;  yet 
he  leads  us  through  unfamiliar  scenes  from  be- 
ginning to  end,  and  we  become  aware  that  he  is 
drawing  from  some  distinct  and  original  historic 
source.  Wherever  this  Gospel  was  written,  in 
Alexandria,  or  in  Asia  Minor,  a  tradition  of  Jesus 
had  survived  as  unlike  the  Palestine  picture  as 
Phrygia  was  unlike  Galilee.  It  is  no  longer  a 
Galilaean  ministry  that  we  are  witnessing.  It  is 
in  Judaea  that  the  Messiah  begins  his  earthly 
work;  in  Judaea  that  he  chiefly  continues  it; 
and  in  Judaea  that  he  ends  it.2  Instead  of  last- 
were  drawn  was,  of  course,  common  property;  and  it  is  a 
nice  problem  to  decide  whether  an  almost  contemporaneous 
writer  is  borrowing  indirectly  from  them,  or  directly  from 
the  original  source.  Critics  who  insist  that  our  Gospel  was 
indebted  to  its  three  predecessors  have  to  admit  that  the 
author  took  great  liberties  with  those  predecessors,  and  drew 
equally  freely  from  outside  sources.  See  Note  II. 

1  In  many  details  this  Gospel  is  more  minute  and  realistic 
than  its  predecessors:  vi.  5-13,  15,  22-24;  vii.  5;  viii.  3-11; 
ix.  6;  xviii.  2,  13,  26;  xix.  21,  23. 

2  The  only  association  with  Galilee  is  in  the  passages :  i.  45, 
46;  ii.  i-n ;  iv.  43-54;  vi.  i-vii.  9.     Jesus  stays  in  Galilee, 
at  most  (if  chronological  calculations  are  to  be  applied  to  the 


206  PAPIAS 

ing  but  a  single  year,  it  goes  on  from  one  Pass- 
over to  another,  and  still  another.1  He  has  at 
his  side,  not  the  familiar  Twelve,  but  four  or 
five  companions  hardly  known  to  the  other 
Evangelists.2  He  discourses  with  his  disciples 
or  the  multitude,  not  in  familiar  conversation 
or  parable,  but  in  stately  tones  of  reverie  or 
monologue. 

But  it  is  not  so  much  the  historic  scenery 

Fourth  Gospel  at  all),  but  1+3  +  6  months ;  /.  e.,  ten  months 
out  of  nearly  three  years. 

1  John  ii.  13 ;  vi.  4 ;  xi.  55.    In  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke, 
only  one  Passover  is  mentioned.    (Matt.  xxvi.  2 ;  Mark  xiv.  i ; 
Luke  xxii.  i.) 

2  But  for  two   or  three  perfunctory   allusions  to   "the 
Twelve"  (vi.  67-71 ;  xx.  24),  we  should  know  nothing  of  a 
circle  of  twelve  disciples.     Andrew,  Philip,  and   Thomas, 
who  are  so  conspicuous  in  this  narrative  (i.  40,  43-45 ;  vi. 
5-8 ;  xii.  22 ;  xiv.  5,  8 ;  xx.  24-29),  play  but  an  insignificant 
part  in  the  other  Gospels;  while  Nathaniel,  of  whom  Jesus 
speaks  with   such  peculiar  commendation   (i.  45-51),  and 
who  is  especially  named  as  a  disciple  (xxi.  2),  is  absolutely 
unknown  elsewhere.     Commentators  make  praiseworthy  at- 
tempts to  identify  Nathaniel  with    one    or   other   of  the 
Twelve.    One  is  sure  that  his  name  is  synonymous  with  Mat- 
thew (Weizsacker,  Apos.  Age,  ii.  170;  Pfleiderer,  Urchrist., 
700  n.) ;   another  equally  positive  that  it  is  the  same  with 
Bartholomew.     (Meyer  on  John,  i.  46.)     Beside  these  there 
is  a  certain   "beloved  disciple,"  whose  name  is  never  dis- 
closed and  who  is  elsewhere  unknown,  who  evidently  made 
part  of  the  local  traditions  from  which  our  author  draws, 
(xiii.  23 ;  xix.  26 ;  xxi.  20.) 


THE   MYSTIC  GOSPEL  207 

which  distinguishes  this  Gospel  from  the  others, 
as  the  spirit  in  which  the  facts  are  handled. 
The  writer's  interest  lies,  without  concealment, 
not  in  the  incidents  which  he  is  recording,  but 
in  their  spiritual  significance.  Though  trans- 
acted on  earth,  it  is  none  the  less  a  heavenly 
history  which  he  presents.  Indeed,  it  has  no 
earthly  beginning.  There  is  no  birth,  not  even 
a  miraculous  one ;  still  less  any  Baptism, l  or 
Temptation,  or  Gethsemane.  We  are  taken 
back  at  the  outset  to  the  very  beginning,  be- 
fore time  was  ;  into  the  mysteries  of  the  eter- 
nal councils.  The  actor  in  these  scenes  is  not 
the  human  Jesus  that  he  seems  ;  not  really  he. 
It  is  the  very  Word,  the  Logos,  which  was 
with  God  from  the  beginning  and  was  himself 
divine.2  He  was  the  agent  through  whom  all 

.  *  John  i.  32, 33,  is  commonly  supposed  to  refer  to  the  bap- 
tism of  Jesus ;  but  the  only  ground  for  the  assumption  is  that 
in  the  other  Gospels  the  descent  of  the  Spirit  is  connected 
with  that  event.  The  passage  itself  does  not  imply  that 
Jesus  was  baptized.  If  our  author  is  acquainted  with  the 
tradition,  he  suppresses  it. 

2  i.  i  :  "  teal  ®eb$  %v  6  \6yos"  The  absence  of  the  article 
with  &e6s  makes  the  translation  "  The  Word  was  a  god,"  or 
"was  divine," more  probable  than  the  common  version.  In 
any  case,  it  hardly  appears  how  the  Word  could  be  "  with. 
God,"  and  at  the  same  time  God  himself,  in  the  author's 
mind.  Philo,  in  commenting  upon  an  Old  Testament  pas- 
sage, recognizes  just  this  distinction  between  0«<fe  with  and 


208  PAPIAS 

things  were  created.1  He  was  the  only  son 
really  born  of  God ;  the  only  begotten ; 2  and 
shared  the  life  and  light  which  constitutes 
the  essence  of  Deity.3  All  this  time,  while  the 
Son  rested  in  the  bosom  of  the  Father,  the 
world  was  lying  in  darkness,  unaware  even  of 
the  light  which  was  shining  upon  every  soul 
which  came  into  the  world.4  In  him  alone  lies 
the  redemption  of  a  world  bound  in  the  tragic 
antithesis  of  darkness  and  light,  evil  and  good.6 
Now,  at  last  (we  are  not  told  how  or  when),  he 
has  taken  the  form  of  flesh  ;  has  dwelt  among 
us  indeed  in  an  earthly  tabernacle,  and  we  have 

without  the  article.  "  The  true  God  is  one,  but  those  loosely 
called  God  are  many.  The  Scriptures  therefore  indicated 
the  true  God  by  using  the  article,  but  the  ones  improperly 
so  called  by  omitting  the  article.  In  this  way,  it  calls  the 
most  ancient  Word  god  "  (without  article).  "  For  it  does 
not  belong  to  the  Supreme  to  be  described,  but  simply  to 
be."  (Sam.,  i.  39.)  Our  author  is  not  so  exact  in  this  regard 
as  Philo,  as  he  sometimes  seems  to  recognize  this  distinc- 
tion (viii.  54;  x.  33-35),  but  in  other  cases  ignores  it.  (i.  6, 
12,  13,  18;  iii.  2,  21  ;  xix.  7.)  The  translation  above  given, 
however,  seems  more  in  accordance  with  the  usage  of  the 
times.  (See  Meyer's  commentary  on  this  passage;  Bret- 
schn eider,  Glaubenslehre,  302.)  See  Note  JJ. 

1  John  i.  3. 

2  i.  14,  1 8.     The  word  here  translated  "only  begotten" 
means  in  all  other  parts  of  the  New  Testament  simply  the 
only  son.     (Luke  vii.  12  ;  viii.  42 ;  also,  John  v.  26.) 

8  i.  4-  *  i.  9-  5  i.  5,  10-13. 


THE   MYSTIC  GOSPEL  209 

gazed  upon  his  glory,  full  of  grace  and  truth.1 
We  have  received  what  Moses  and  the  Law 
could  not  give ;  what  he  alone  who  is  in  the 
bosom  of  the  Father  can  declare.2  With  the 
coming  of  the  Christ,3  man  enters  at  last  upon 
his  divine  inheritance,  the  sonship  of  God. 

With  this  Prologue,  so  impressive  in  its  sim- 
plicity, and  lending  celestial  dignity  to  all  that 
follows,  the  new  Gospel  opens.  The  one  con- 
nection with  the  human  incidents  which  else- 
where attend  the  birth  of  the  Messiah — or  his 
entrance  upon  his  ministry  —  is  offered  by  the 
introduction  of  John  the  Baptist,  "the  man 
sent  from  God  ...  to  bear  witness  of  the 
Light."  4  It  is  not  exactly  the  Baptist  we  know 
so  well ;  the  gaunt  hermit  of  the  wilderness, 
whose  strange  mien  and  attire,  and  fiery  reproof 
of  Pharisees  and  Sadducees,  publicans  and  sol- 

1  John  i.  14.  2  jg  !7?  !g. 

8  This  sharp  distinction  between  the  Christian  revelation 
and  all  that  had  preceded  it,  and  limitation  of  Christ's  mes- 
sage to  those  who  were  able  by  nature  to  receive  him  and 
share  in  his  sonship  (i.  12,  13,  17),  corresponds  altogether 
with  the  Gnostic  systems  which  we  have  been  considering. 
Other  points  of  resemblance  will  appear  as  we  go  on.  I 
have  no  desire  to  make  this  out  a  Gnostic  Gospel  in  any 
other  sense  than  as  being  plainly  the  product  of  a  movement 
which  was  producing  at  the  same  time  the  Gnostic  schools. 
See  Note  KK. 

*  i.  6,  7,  15,  19-36. 


2io  PAPIAS 

diers,  make  the  most  vivid  sketch  by  far  in  the 
old  Gospel  picture  ; 1  not  the  half -despairing 
preacher  of  the  kingdom,  doubtful  to  the  end 
whether  Jesus  of  Nazareth  were  really  "  he 
that  should  come."2  This  John  the  Baptist 
knew  the  Messiah  from  the  start ;  had  known 
of  him  before  he  came ;  3  and  appears  before  us 
but  for  a  moment,  to  usher  in  the  incarnate  Son 
of  God.  The  anchorite,  the  wild  reformer,  the 
preacher  of  righteousness,  has  become  a  shadow 
of  himself,  a  ghostly  form  which  passes  for  a 
moment  before  our  eyes^  speaks  the  language  of 
the  Alexandrian  philosophy,4  points  dramatically 
to  "  the  Lamb  of  God,  which  taketh  away  the 
sin  of  the  world,"  5  and  disappears  speedily  from 
sight.6 

In  a  Gospel  thus  opened  we  shall  hardly 
expect  much  individuality  in  the  various  actors, 
or  much  definiteness  of  place  or  time.  Phrases 
like  "the  next  day,"  "the  day  following,"  "the 
third  day,"  "after  these  things,"  occur  here  and 

1  Matt.  iii. ;  Luke  iii. 

2  Matt.  xi.  3.  8  John  i.  29,  33. 
*  i.  30.                               5  i.  29. 

6  The  only  further  allusion  to  John  the  Baptist  is  in  iii. 
23-36,  where  he  still  appears  as  the  mystic,  Alexandrine 
philosopher.  (For  a  striking  comparison  of  the  Baptist  of 
our  Gospel  with  the  Baptist  of  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke, 
see  F.  Tiffany,  in  Institute  Essays,  223-226,  Boston,  1880.) 


THE   MYSTIC  GOSPEL  211 

there,  but  have  nothing  behind  to  give  them 
meaning,  and  introduce  a  chronology  which  is 
absolutely  vague  throughout.1  Men  and  women 
appear  ;  but  we  must  be  prepared  to  find  that 
they  are  as  shadowy  and  intangible  as  the  Bap- 
tist himself,  and  with  even  less  part  or  concern 
in  what  occurs;  that  their  conversation  and 
actions  are  unreal,  and  that  their  presence 
simply  affords  occasion  for  the  utterance  of 
abstruse  thoughts  far  beyond  their  comprehen- 
sion, where  speaker,  listener,  and  narrator  are 
forgotten  in  mystical  and  exalted  monologue. 
The  Messiah  speaks  in  oracles  ;  sometimes  with 
no  audience  before  him,  and  into  the  empty 
air;  always  as  if  looking  beyond  his  hearers  to 
the  generations  yet  to  come.2  We  are  in  a 
shadow  world  throughout,  where  the  invisible, 
the  ideal,  the  spiritual  alone  is  real. 

1  John  i.  29,  35,  43 ;  ii.  i ;  v.  i  ;  vi.  I ;  vii.  I ;  viii.  i,  2.     The 
solitary  instance  of  chronological  exactness  which  this  Gos- 
pel contains  (iii.  24.     Comp.  Euseb.,  Hist.  £cc.,  iii.  24,  7-13) 
is  in  flat  contradiction  of  the  older  tradition.    (Matt.  iv.  12.) 
It  is  often  as  though   the  author  set  historic  accuracy  at 
defiance,  to  emphasize  the  more  his  purely  spiritual  purpose. 
The  localities  are  as  vague  and  undefined  as  the  chronology. 
Some  are  otherwise  unknown  (i.  28  ;  iii.  23);  some  suggest 
a  possible  allegorical  significance,    (iii.  23,  "  JEnon  (Brunnen) 
verhalt  sich  zu  Salem  (Heil)  wie  die  Wassertaufe  Johannis 
zur  Geistestaufe  Christi."     Pfleiderer,  707  n.) 

2  iv.  23,  24 ;  vii.  37,  38 ;  xii.  44-50. 


212  PAPIAS 

Even  the  humanities,  the  tenderest,  pass  for 
little  here.  At  Cana  of  Galilee,  where  a  mar- 
riage feast  seems  for  the  moment  to  lend  a 
pleasant  personal  touch  to  the  opening  narrative, 
when  the  mother  of  Jesus  ventures  to  tell  her 
son  that  there  is  no  wine  for  the  guests,  Jesus 
replies  :  "  Woman,  what  have  I  to  do  with  thee  ? 
mine  hour  is  not  yet  come."  l  Plainly,  it  is  the 
Logos  that  speaks  here,  not  the  man.  The 
whole  scene  indeed  vanishes  as  we  read.  It 
is  no  real  marriage;  it  is  the  entry  of  the 
Messiah  upon  his  wonder-working  career.  It 
is  the  "beginning  of  miracles,"  in  which  he 
"  manifested  forth  his  glory."  2 

The  men  and  women  of  the  narrative,  as  has 
been  said,  play  no  essential  part  in  the  course 
of  events,  but  serve  for  the  most  part  as  occa- 
sions for  philosophic  discourse.  At  Jerusalem  3 
a  certain  Nicodemus,  unknown  to  the  other 
Gospels,  comes  stealthily  into  Jesus'  presence 

1  John  ii.  4.  2  ii.  n. 

8  Galilee,  as  has  been  said,  has  only  an  incidental  connec- 
tion with  our  history  throughout.  The  Messiah  appears 
there  but  seldom,  never  comes  to  Nazareth,  begins  his  min- 
istry at  Jerusalem,  and  hastens  back  there  at  each  juncture, 
as  the  fittest  stage  for  his  messianic  activity.  His  first  com- 
ing is  heralded  by  the  dramatic  Temple  incident,  which  in  the 
other  Gospels  is  placed  at  the  close  of  his  career,  (ii.  13-17. 
Comp.  Matt.  xxi.  12,  13.) 


THE   MYSTIC  GOSPEL  213 

at  night.  He  has  no  real  question  of  his  own 
to  propose ;  the  conversation,  if  such  it  can  be 
called,  is  carried  on  on  two  distinct  planes  ;  he 
shows  no  understanding  of  the  Master's  sen- 
tentious speech  ;  he  disappears  forthwith  from 
the  scene,  and  is  forgotten  by  the  narrator 
before  the  chapter  is  finished.1  But  meantime 
his  brief  remark  has  afforded  an  opportunity 
for  the  Christ,  quite  regardless  of  Nicodemus's 
presence,  to  unfold  the  purely  heavenly  charac- 
ter of  his  mission.  In  the  Gospel  of  Matthew 
on  a  similar  occasion,  as  Jesus  enters  upon  his 
ministry,  we  have  the  fine  ethical  precepts  of 
the  Sermon  on  the  Mount ;  here  we  listen 
instead  to  an  unfathomable  utterance  upon 
the  radical  distinction  between  things  of  the 
flesh  and  things  of  the  spirit.  It  is  to  the 
"  spiritual  "  alone  that  the  kingdom  of  heaven 

1  John  iii.  1-9.  So  unimportant  a  part  does  Nicodemus 
take  in  this  scene  that  it  is  impossible  to  tell  just  where  the 
conversation  ends.  The  same  is  to  be  said  of  the  words  of 
John  the  Baptist  which  follow,  and  which  seem  to  pass  im- 
perceptibly into  the  language  of  the  Evangelist  or  of  Jesus 
himself.  (22-36.)  Nicodemus  appears  twice  again,  once  in 
companionship  with  Joseph  of  Arimathaea  (vii.  50-52 ;  xix. 
39)  ;  yet  is  nowhere  mentioned  in  the  other  Gospels.  Baur 
regards  him  solely  as  a  type  of  half-believing  Judaism ; 
believing  in  the  miracles,  but  belonging  to  the  world  of  dark- 
ness, and  so  not  receptive  of  the  higher  truth.  (Die  kan. 
Evangelien,  143.) 


214  PAPIAS 

belongs  :  "  Verily,  verily,  I  say  unto  thee,  Except 
a  man  be  born  from  above,1  he  cannot  see  the 
kingdom  of  God.  .  .  .  That  which  is  born  of 
the  flesh  is  flesh  ;  and  that  which  is  born  of 
the  Spirit  is  spirit."  2  Christ's  coming  of  itself 
brought  out  the  vital  antagonism  between  the 
creatures  of  darkness  and  the  creatures  of  light : 
"  This  is  the  condemnation,  that  light  is  come 
into  the  world,  and  men  loved  darkness  rather 
than  light,  because  their  deeds  were  evil.  For 
every  one  that  doeth  evil  hateth  the  light,  .  .  . 
but  he  that  doeth  truth  cometh  to  the  light, 
that  his  deeds  may  be  made  manifest."  3  In 
these  mystic  words,  hardly  more  intelligible  to 
us  than  to  Nicodemus  himself,  the  whole  mis- 
sion of  Jesus  is  lifted  once  for  all  from  earthly 
to  celestial  spheres ;  but  before  the  discourse  is 
ended,  the  hearer  has  passed  wholly  from  our 
thought,  and  the  result,  so  far  as  he  is  con- 
cerned, remains  an  unimportant  matter  of  con- 
jecture.4 

1  This  word,  &va>eev,  may  also  be  translated,  as  in  the 
common  version,  "  again ;  "  but  the  original  meaning,  "  from 
above"    (as  inverse  31),  seems  more  in   accord  with  the 
writer's  thought.     For   the  use  of  this  passage  by  Justin 
Martyr,  see  Note  LL. 

2  John  iii.  3-8. 
8  iii.  19-21. 

4  The  Nicodemus  passage  can  be  .understood  only  as  the 


THE   MYSTIC  GOSPEL  215 

Again,  as  Jesus  passes  through  Samaria,  a 
woman  meets  him  at  a  well.  She  is  a  woman 
of  the  people ;  of  the  lowest  ranks  of  the  peo- 
ple ;  even  more  impervious  than  Nicodemus  him- 
self to  the  higher  truth.  She  can  see  in  the 
Jewish  stranger  only  a  sorcerer,  reading  the  for- 
bidden secrets  of  her  private  life ;  the  conversa- 
tion between  them  is,  as  before,  on  two  mutually 
inaccessible  levels ;  the  woman  comes  and  goes 
as  vaguely  as  Nicodemus ;  but  none  the  less  has 
elicited  from  the  Christ  the  finest  message  of 
his  Gospel,  thrown  out  upon  the  air  with  none 
but  a  hardened  woman  to  hear,  and  none  to  re- 
member or  report.  "  Woman,  believe  me,  the 
hour  cometh,  when  ye  shall  neither  in  this  moun- 
tain, nor  yet  at  Jerusalem,  worship  the  Father. 
.  .  .  God  is  a  Spirit :  and  they  that  worship 

most  definite  expression  on  the  writer's  part  of  his  con- 
stantly recurring  antithesis  of  flesh  and  spirit,  darkness  and 
light,  earth  and  heaven.  The  kingdom  of  God,  according 
to  this  chapter,  is  not  for  all,  but  for  those  only  who,  through 
the  waters  of  baptism,  have  received  the  spiritual  birth. 
Christ  comes  indeed  to  save  the  world,  but  can  reach  those 
alone  who  belong  by  nature  to  him.  His  coming  is  itself 
the  saving  or  condemnation  of  men ;  separating  at  once  the 
lovers  of  darkness  from  the  lovers  of  light.  And  this  dis- 
tinction is  an  absolute  one,  from  which  there  is  no  escape. 
"  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  hath  everlasting  life :  and 
he  that  believeth  not  the  Son  shall  not  see  life;  but  the 
wrath  of  God  abideth  on  him."  (John  iii.  5,  17-21,  36.) 


216  PAPIAS 

him  must  worship  him  in  spirit  and  in  truth."  l 
Where  else  in  all  literature  do  the  material 
facts,  the  well,  the  water,  the  thirst,  the  woman, 
the  husband,  melt  so  completely  into  thin  air, 
leaving  only  a  spiritual  essence  behind  ? 2 

Once  for  all,  we  must  take  these  pages  on 
their  own  ground,  and  catch  from  them  the 
breath  of  that  special  age,  if  we  would  feel  their 
power.  If  we  seek  here  the  charm  or  variety 
of  historic  incident,  the  nature-touch  of  parable, 
or  even  the  burning  tones  of  moral  indignation 
or  reproof,  we  look  in  vain.  This  is  no  chroni- 
cle, nor  ethical  treatise.  In  themselves  these 
monologues,  returning  constantly  to  the  same 
mystic  theme,  are  strangely  monotonous.  It  is 
only  as  they  lift  us  with  them  into  spiritual 

1  John  iv.  1-26. 

2  I  am  not,  of  course,  criticising  the  narrative,  so  intrin- 
sically beautiful  and  elevating;   but  only  pointing  out  its 
purely  symbolic  character.      Baur  finds  in   the  woman  of 
Samaria  a  type  of  receptive  heathenism,  as  opposed  to  the 
unreceptive  Judaism  typified  in  Nicodemus.     (Evang.,  142- 
147.)     Pfleiderer  thinks  the  story  an  obvious  allegory,  based 
on  2  Bangs  xvii.  24-42 ;  the  five  husbands  symbolizing  the 
five  heathen  worships  in  Samaria,  the  sixth  the  equally  ille- 
gitimate Judaism.     (Urchrist.,  708.     See  Josephus,  Ant.,  ix. 
14,  3.)     To  me  it  seems  more  natural  to  suppose  all  these 
incidents  veritable  parts  of  the  Gospel  tradition,  as  known  to 
our  author,  and  used  as  best  he  can  to  unfold  the  character 
of  his  ideal  Christ. 


THE   MYSTIC   GOSPEL  217 

reverie  that  we  discover  their  true  force.  This 
is  especially  true  when  familiar  scenes  from 
Gospel  history  pass  now  and  then  before  us. 
The  Jewish  Sabbath  is  violated,  as  in  the  other 
Gospels.  In  them,  as  we  remember,  it  calls 
forth  fine  moral  precepts,  and  is  made  to  incul- 
cate lessons  of  beneficence  and  right.  "The 
sabbath  was  made  for  man,  and  not  man  for 
the  sabbath."  "Wherefore  it  ,is  lawful  to  do 
well  on  the  sabbath  days." J  Here  it  serves 
instead  as  a  text  for  a  theological  disquisition, 
carrying  us  once  again  into  the  deepest  mys- 
teries of  the  Godhead.  The  Jews  who  throng 
around  the  Messiah  in  the  streets  of  Jerusalem 
listen  to  a  discourse  on  certain  transcendent 
distinctions  between  the  Father  and  the  Son. 
Far  from  resting  on  the  Sabbath,  says  the 
Christ,  God  works  continually ;  and  the  Son  also 
works.2  The  Son  reflects  the  being  of  the  Fa- 
ther :  "  What  things  soever  the  Father  doeth, 
these  also  doeth  the  Son  likewise."  3  He  is  abso- 
lutely dependent  on  the  Father :  "  The  Son  can 
do  nothing  of  himself,  but  what  he  seeth  the 

1  Mark  ii.  27;  Matt.  xii.  12. 

2  John  v.  17.    Comp.  Philo,  Leg.  Alleg^  i.  3.    "  God  never 
ceases  working ;  but  as  it  is  the  nature  of  fire  to  burn,  and 
of  snow  to  chill,  so  also  does  it  belong  to  God  to  be  doing." 

8  v.  19. 


218  PAPIAS 

Father  do."  "  I  can  of  mine  own  self  do  no- 
thing : .  .  .  because  I  seek  not  mine  own  will,  but 
the  will  of  the  Father  which  hath  sent  me."1 
Yet  the  Son  claims  equal  honor  with  the  Fa- 
ther.2 In  his  hands,  indeed,  is  the  divine  judg- 
ment ;  for  his  voice  calls  even  the  dead  to  life, 
and  separates  forever  the  believer  from  the  un- 
believer, assigning  the  one  to  eternal  life,  the 
other  to  "  the  resurrection  of  damnation."  3  Had 
the  Jews  understood  their  own  Scriptures,  they 
would  have  found  all  this  concealed  there; 
for  beneath  the  letter  was  a  hidden  message. 
"They  testify  of  me."4  All  testimony  of  the 
past  points  to  the  Christ. 

The  Christ  of  this  Gospel  may  be  of  the  Jew- 
ish race,  or  he  may  not ;  we  cannot  tell.  He 
is  called  "  Jesus  of  Nazareth  ; "  6  he  passes  as  a 
Jew ; 6  he  is  the  son  of  Joseph,  whose  father  and 
mother  all  know ; 7  he  quotes  from  Jewish  Scrip- 
tures ; 8  there  is  a  story  that  he  has  come  out  of 
Galilee.9  Yet,  on  the  other  hand,  he  speaks  of 
Galilee  as  if  it  were  not  his  own  country ; 10  and 
throughout  the  entire  Gospel,  the  Jews  are  men- 

1  John  v.  19,  30.  a  v.  23. 

8  v.  29.  *  v.  39,  46. 

e  i.  45-  6  iv-  9- 

7  vi.  42. 

8  v.  39,  46;  viii.  56;  x.  34,  35;  xii.  41. 

9  vii.  41.  10  iv.  44. 


THE   MYSTIC   GOSPEL  219 

tioned  as  if  of  a  foreign  race.  They  are  always 
"the  Jews."1  Even  the  Christ  himself,  in  ad- 
dressing the  Jews,  speaks  of  "your  law,"  and 
"your  father  Abraham."2  He  goes  still  far- 
ther :  "  Ye  are  of  your  father  the  devil,  and  the 
lusts  of  your  father  ye  will  do.  He  was  a  mur- 
derer from  the  beginning,  and  abode  not  in  the 
truth,  because  there  is  no  truth  in  him."  3  For 
the  Logos,  it  would  seem,  the  eternal  Son  of 
God,  all  questions  of  race  or  fatherhood  or  na- 
tion are  of  too  slight  account  to  be  considered. 
But  other  things  beside  places  and  individuals 
melt  away  under  this  spiritualizing  process.  One 
of  the  marked  peculiarities  of  our  Gospel  is  its 

1  John  i.  19;  ii.  13,  20;  v.  i,  10,  18;  vi.  41. 

2  viii.  56;  x.  34;  xv.  25. 

»  viii.  44.  The  last  clause  of  this  verse  may  be  read :  "  He 
is  a  liar,  and  his  father  also ;  "  thus  affording,  as  many  com- 
mentators think,  a  reminiscence  of  the  Gnostic  doctrine  of 
Satan  as  son  of  the  Demiurge.  (Hilgenfeld,  Evang.  und 
Brief  Johan.,  160;  O.  Holtzmann,  Johan.  Evang.,  80  n.)  In 
any  case,  the  children  of  God  and  the  children  of  the  Devil, 
including  the  Jews  as  a  whole  and  the  world  in  general,  are 
placed  here  in  radical  contrast.  (Comp.  Baur,  Evang.,  176; 
Keim,  y<?jzAr  of  Nazara,  i.  151.)  The  Devil  appears  in  this 
Gospel  as  the  great  foe  of  the  Christ.  He  is  the  "  Archon 
of  this  world,"  who  is  to  hold  his  own  till  the  Logos  appears 
to  cast  him  out.  (xiv.  30;  xvi.  n  ;  xii.  31.)  This  essential 
antagonism,  which  runs  through  all  the  Gnostic  systems, 
runs  through  our  Gospel  as  well,  and  is  fundamental  to  its 
thought. 


220  PAPIAS 

strange  silence  in  regard  to  the  Lord's  Supper. 
It  seems  at  first  glance  to  know  nothing  of  this 
incident  whatever.  The  disciples  gather  at  sup- 
per, it  is  true,  on  the  night  before  the  crucifix- 
ion ; l  but  the  evening  passes  without  any  allu- 
sion to  the  rite  which  the  Christian  Church  has 
ever  since  associated  so  closely  with  those  clos- 
ing hours.  Can  it  be  that  the  tradition,  although 
so  widely  known  among  the  churches,  had  not 
reached  the  author  of  this  Gospel  ? 2  Or  is  it 
left  unmentioned  because  he  would  have  his 
readers  disregard  the  outward  form  of  this  his- 
toric rite,  and  see  in  it  only  its  latent  sense  ?  If 
he  refers  to  the  Supper  at  all,  this  must  be  the 
explanation ;  and  one  of  the  early  chapters  of 
the  Gospel  seems  to  force  us  to  this  conclusion. 
No  supper  is  mentioned  there,  nor  any  actual 
bread  or  wine.  Jesus  is  in  the  synagogue  at 
Capernaum.  Below  are  the  Jewish  multitudes, 
with  minds  still  intent  upon  the  miraculous 
loaves  on  which  they  had  been  fed,  and  clamor- 

1  John  xiii.-xvii. 

2  If  the  author  was  familiar  with  the  Epistles  of  Paul, 
he  must  have  known  of  this  rite,     (i  Cor.  xi.  23-34.)     In 
the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles,  the  Eucharist  appears 
also  as  an  established  rite  (9,  10).     There  is  little  to  prove 
that  the  author  was  acquainted  with  Paul ;   though  a  few 
passages  look  somewhat  like  it.     (Comp.  Rom.  vi.  16,  and 
John  viii.  34 ;  Jiilicher,  Einleit.,  248.) 


THE   MYSTIC  GOSPEL  221 

ing  for  some  new  sign,  like  the  falling  of  the 
manna  in  the  wilderness  ;  above,  the  Christ,  en- 
gaged in  lofty  speech  which  even  the  disciples 
cannot  comprehend.1  In  most  narratives  it 
would  be  bewildering  to  find  allusions  to  a  sol- 
emn rite  like  the  Eucharist,  before  its  estab- 
lishment,2 and  addressed  to  an  assembly  for 
whom  the  Eucharist  could  have  no  meaning; 
but  here  it  does  not  surprise  us  at  all.  Time 
and  place,  flesh  and  blood,  bread  and  wine,  are 
but  symbols  at  best  of  a  diviner  reality.  The 

1  John  vi.  25-59,  60,  66. 

2  In  these  mystic  utterances  it  is,  of  course,  impossible  to 
determine  with  certainty  how  much  or  how  little  is  historic 
reality.      Many  commentators  refuse  to  see  any  reference 
whatever  to  the  Eucharist  here.    Meyer  (in  the  Commentary 
on  this  passage)  finds  an  allusion  to  the  Cross,  instead  of  the 
Lord's  Supper.      Renan  regards  this  discourse  as  the  real 
origin  of  the  ideas  afterwards  incorporated  in  the  Eucharist, 
and  thinks  this  Gospel  more  historical  in  this  respect  than 
the  others.     (Life  of  Jesus,  442,  Boston,  1896.)     It  seems, 
on  the  whole,  more  probable  that  the  writer  has  trie  Eucha- 
rist  actually  in  view,  and  indeed  regards  both   Eucharist 
and  Baptism  as  rites  essential  for  the  communication  of  the 
divine  spirit,  but  makes  the  spiritual  import  paramount,    (iii. 
5 ;  vi.  53.)     It  is  plain  from  Paul's  account  how  grossly  the 
observance  was  often  practiced,    (i  Cor.  xi.  21,  22,  34.)    Our 
Evangelist  insists  upon  a  nobler  conception.     "  One,"  says 
Philo,  "  raises  his  eyes  to  heaven,  beholding  the  manna,  the 
divine  Logos,  the  heavenly  incorruptible  food  of  the  enrap- 
tured soul;   the  other  sees  only  the  leeks  and  onions  of 
Egypt."     (Quis  Rer.  Her.,  15 ;  Leg.  Alleg.,  iii.  59.) 


222  PAPIAS 

only  true  manna  is  the  "  bread  of  God  ;  he  which 
cometh  down  from  heaven,  and  giveth  life  unto 
the  world."  "  I  am  that  bread  of  life.  Your 
fathers  did  eat  manna  in  the  wilderness,  and  are 
dead.  ...  I  am  the  living  bread  which  came 
down  from  heaven  :  if  any  man  eat  of  this  bread, 
he  shall  live  for  ever :  and  the  bread  that  I  will 
give  is  my  flesh,  which  I  will  give  for  the  life  of 
the  world."  "Verily  I  say  unto  you,  Except  ye 
eat  the  flesh  of  the  Son  of  man,  and  drink  his 
blood,  ye  have  no  life  in  you.  .  .  .  For  my  flesh 
is  meat  indeed,  and  my  blood  is  drink  indeed." 
These  forms  and  words  are  nothing ;  it  is  the 
spirit  alone  that  tells.  "  It  is  the  spirit  that 
quickeneth  ;  the  flesh  profiteth  nothing :  the 
words  that  I  speak  unto  you,  they  are  spirit, 
and  they  are  life." 1 

Even  the  miracles  of  this  Gospel,  like  other 
outward  incidents,  lose  their  verisimilitude,  and 
become  themselves  but  symbols.  They  are  no 
less  vivid  or  genuine  than  elsewhere,  they  are 
apparently  quite  as  historical,  and  are  often 
even  more  realistic  in  their  details ; 2  but  while 
in  Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  the  tenderness 
or  beneficence  of  the  act  itself  challenges  our 
attention,  here  the  act  always  serves  some  ulte- 

1  John  vi.  33,  48-51,  53-55,  63. 

2  v.  5;  vi.  5-13;  ix.  6. 


THE   MYSTIC   GOSPEL  223 

rior  purpose,  for  which  alone  it  is  introduced. 
It  becomes  expository  or  didactic  ;  it  points  a 
moral ;  it  affords  a  starting-point  for  a  theologi- 
cal discourse,  or  the  discussion  of  abstract  and 
inscrutable  truths.  Of  what  moment  is  it  in 
such  a  narrative,  the  writer  seems  to  say,  that 
the  hungry  multitudes  are  fed,  or  the  blind 
made  to  see,  or  even  the  dead  raised  to  life ;  it 
is  not  the  thing  itself,  but  the  something  sym- 
bolized that  we  are  to  remember.1  A  man  born 
blind  sits  by  the  wayside  as  Jesus  and  his  dis- 
ciples pass.  The  Master  stops,  makes  clay  to 
anoint  the  eyes  of  the  sufferer,  and  bids  him 
"go,  wash  in  the  pool  of  Siloam,"  and  be  healed.2 
A  beautiful  act  of  helpfulness,  which  touches 
our  deepest  sympathies,  and  on  which  we  would 
gladly  dwell.  But  no ;  it  is  not  the  physical 
blindness  that  we  are  to  be  moved  by,  but  the 
spiritual.  It  is  "that  the  works  of  God  may 
be  manifest  in  him,"  that  he  has  been  healed.3 
The  blind  man  escapes  from  a  lifetime  of  dark- 
ness to  proclaim  obscure  truths,  and  enunciate 
the  author's  dogmas.  The  Christ  is  shown 
thereby  to  be  "the  light  of  the  world."  "As 
long  as  I  am  in  the  world,  I  am  the  light  of  the 
world."  "  For  judgment  I  am  come  into  this 

1  John  vi.  27 ;  v.  17,  18.  a  ix.  1-7. 


224  PAPIAS 

world,  that  they  which  see  not  might  see ;  and 
that  they  which  see  might  be  made  blind."1 
The  passing  touch  of  the  human  and  the  real 
disappears  at  once  in  the  theological  and  ideal. 
Again,  a  dear  friend  of  Jesus  dies.  The  Mas- 
ter's relations  with  the  whole  household  are 
peculiarly  tender,  and  as  he  approaches  the 
bereft  home  he  is  deeply  moved.  For  a  mo- 
ment, one  single  moment,  the  stately  march  of 
the  narrative  is  disturbed,  the  Logos  is  forgot- 
ten, and  a  living  man  stands  before  us.  Jesus 
weeps.  Yet  only  for  a  moment.  All  has  been 
prearranged,  we  find  at  once ;  the  bitter  trial 
was  known  and  intended  from  the  beginning. 
"  When  Jesus  heard  that,  he  said,  This  sickness 
is  not  unto  death,  but  for  the  glory  of  God,  that 
the  Son  of  God  might  be  glorified  thereby." 
The  Master  still  tarries  two  days  in  the  same 
place,  though  knowing  that  his  friend's  death 
approaches.  Then  he  says  to  his  disciples : 
"  Our  friend  Lazarus  sleepeth ;  but  I  go,  that  I 
may  awake  him  out  of  sleep.  .  .  .  And  I  am 
glad  for  your  sakes  that  I  was  not  there,  to  the 
intent  ye  may  believe;  nevertheless  let  us  go 
unto  him."2  When  the  grave  is  opened,  and 
the  dead  comes  forth,  it  is  that  the  people  that 
stand  by  might  "see  the  glory  of  God,"  and 

i  John  ix.  5,  39.  2  xi.  4>  6,  n_I5. 


THE   MYSTIC  GOSPEL  225 

believe  that  this  was  "the  Christ,  the  Son  of 
God,  which  should  come  into  the  world."  It 
was  a  token  in  advance  of  his  own  resurrection, 
which  was  to  overcome  death  for  all  who  be- 
lieve.1 I  am  not  for  a  moment  criticising  this 
scene.  No  interpretation  can  rob  it  of  its  dig- 
nity or  pathos.  I  am  only  calling  attention  to 
the  character  of  a  Gospel  in  which,  even  in 
moments  like  this,  the  historic  fact  loses  itself 
so  completely  in  its  speculative  import.2 

Again,  false  leaders  are  troubling  the  church 
as  this  Gospel  is  written ;  teachers  of  strange 
doctrines ;  false  Messiahs,  perhaps,  such  as  were 
long  ago  predicted.3  All  these,  and  indeed  all 
previous  teachers,  says  our  Gospel,  are  but 
thieves  and  robbers ;  they  are  like  hireling 
shepherds,  fleeing  from  danger,  and  forgetting 
the  safety  of  their  flocks.  "  All  that  ever  came 
before  me  are  thieves  and  robbers :  but  the 
sheep  did  not  hear  them.  ...  I  am  the  good 
shepherd  :  the  good  shepherd  giveth  his  life  for 
the  sheep.  ...  I  am  the  good  shepherd  and  know 
my  sheep,  and  am  known  of  mine.  As  the  Fa- 
ther knoweth  me,  even  so  know  I  the  Father : 
and  I  lay  down  my  life  for  the  sheep."  4  These 
are  charming  human  touches,  and  bring  the 

i  John  xi.  25,  40,  42.  2  Note  MM. 

8  Matt.  xxiv.  24.  *  x.  1-15. 


226  PAPIAS 

Christ  very  near  to  earth ;  but  only  to  lift  us 
at  once  to  the  clouds  again.  The  good  shep- 
herd is  the  Logos ;  clothed  with  the  very  power 
of  the  Father.  If  he  lays  down  his  life,  he  has 
power  to  take  it  up  again  when  he  will.  He 
can  impart  to  his  own  eternal  life.  He  shares 
in  the  very  essence  of  the  Father.  "  My  sheep 
hear  my  voice,  and  I  know  them,  and  they  fol- 
low me.  And  I  give  unto  them  eternal  life.  . .  . 
My  Father,  which  gave  them  me,  is  greater 
than  all.  ...  I  and  my  Father  are  one."  1  The 
Jews,  to  whom  Jesus  addressed  these  words,  cry 
out  against  such  a  blasphemous  assumption,  and 
take  up  stones  to  stone  him  :  "  For  a  good  work 
we  stone  thee  not ;  but  for  blasphemy ;  and  be- 
cause that  thou,  being  a  man,  makest  thyself 
God."  2  And  a  vast  assumption  it  was,  if  this 
were  the  Jewish  Messiah  of  the  earlier  Gospels. 
Not  so  with  the  Logos ;  in  whose  mystic  rela- 
tions with  Deity  the  old  messianic  notions  have 
been  forgotten.  Do  not  his  mighty  works  prove 
his  supernal  nature  ?  Do  not  their  own  Scrip- 
tures represent  God  as  surrounded  by  heavenly 
hosts,  and  rank  even  Jewish  and  heathen  rulers 
as  gods  ?  How  much  more  could  he  whom  the 
Father  had  sent  into  the  world  claim  to  be  the 
very  Son  of  God.3 

1  John  x.  18;  27-30.  2  x.  33.  *  x.  34-38. 


THE  MYSTIC  GOSPEL  227 

In  these  exalted  moods,  the  imagination  rarely 
concerns  itself  with  precise  definitions ;  and  we 
cannot  expect  our  author  to  show  us  the  exact 
relations  which  this  celestial  being  holds  to  the 
Infinite.  Certainly  he  does  not  do  so.  Perhaps 
he  had  not  formulated  them  in  his  own  mind. 
These  thoughts  were  still  new ;  and  the  Chris- 
tian mind  had  not  yet  entered  upon  those 
subtler  distinctions  which  afterwards  became  so 
familiar,  and  were  supposed  to  reconcile  all 
contradictions,  and  remove  all  impossibilities. 
Meantime,  so  far  as  this  Gospel  is  concerned, 
these  contradictions  stand,  in  all  simplicity,  side 
by  side.  The  Son  once  rested  in  the  bosom  of 
the  Father,  and  was  with  him  "  before  the  world 
was ; " 1  he  was  sent  down  to  the  earth  and 
became  flesh ; z  like  God,  he  "  had  life  in  him- 
self ;"  he  hath  all  judgment  committed  to  him, 
and  "quickeneth  whom  he  will ; "  3  he  is  of  the 
Father's  essence,  and  is  himself  divine;4  yet 
at  the  same  time,  he  "  can  do  nothing  of  him- 
self ;  "  5  he  can  do  and  speak  only  as  the  Father 
has  taught  him  ; 6  and  never  ceases  to  declare 
his  dependence  upon  the  Father  who  sent  him, 
and  whose  will  alone  he  has  come  to  perform.7 

i  John  xvii.  5,  24.  2  i.  14;  x.  36. 

8  v.  26,  21,  22.  *  x.  30;  i.  i. 

6  v.  19.  6  viii.  28,  29;  x.  18. 

7  iv.  34 ;  v.  19,  30,  36 ;  vi.  38 ;  vii.  16 ;  viii.  28 ;  x.  37  ;  xii.  49. 


228  PAPIAS 

By  and  by  this  will  not  be  enough ;  and  the 
Son's  august  relations  with  the  Father  must  be 
formally  catalogued  and  established.  As  yet 
they  belong  to  the  sphere,  not  of  logic,  but  of 
pure  spiritual  imagination. 

But  the  story  is  not  yet  fully  told.  Insub- 
stantial as  are  the  scenes  of  this  life  in  Judaea, 
it  has  like  all  others,  if  not  an  earthly  beginning, 
at  least  an  earthly  close.  Though  there  is  no 
place  in  this  Gospel  for  the  struggle  or  agony 
of  Gethsemane,  though  the  cruel  end  has  been 
foreshadowed  from  the  outset,1  though  the  Son 
of  God  need  not  fear  death,  but  has  power  even 
to  raise  himself  from  the  grave,2  though  he  has 
come  into  the  world  simply  to  manifest,  in  his 
coming  and  going,  the  divine  counsels,3  this 
cannot  prevent  a  certain  solemnity  gathering 
over  the  closing  hours,  as  of  souls  charged  with 
momentous  secrets.  The  familiar  scenes  of 
the  earlier  Gospels  flit  bewilderingly  before  our 
eyes ;  the  same,  yet  strangely  different ;  like  the 
broken,  inconsequent  apparitions  of  a  dream. 

Though  the  Christ  has  gone  daily  in  and  out 
of  Jerusalem  during  the  two  or  three  years  of 
his  ministry,  he  enters  now  as  a  stranger,  and 
with  the  palm  branches  of  a  victor.  Though 
never  appearing  before  as  the  Jewish  Messiah, 

1  John  ii.  19-22;  iii.  14.  2  x.  18.  «  xvi.  28. 


THE   MYSTIC  GOSPEL  229 

he  suddenly  becomes  the  "  king  of  Israel,"  is 
received  with  shouts  and  songs,  and  seated  upon 
an  ass,  as  in  ancient  prophecy.1  Though  his 
death  is  necessarily  but  a  transient  incident,  and 
his  burial  can  be  therefore  but  for  a  moment, 
he  is  none  the  less  anointed  for  his  burial ;  not, 
indeed,  as  in  other  narratives,  by  a  sinful  woman, 
but  by  Mary,  the  loved  sister  of  Lazarus,  who 
wipes  his  feet  with  her  hair.2  A  vague  trouble, 
as  of  Gethsemane,  passes  over  his  soul ;  yet 
brings  no  heart-broken  supplication,  —  "  O  my 
Father,  if  it  be  possible,  let  this  cup  pass  from 
me/'3  No  ;  but  a  far  more  triumphant  strain: 
"Now  is  my  soul  troubled;  and  what  shall  I 
say  ?  Father,  save  me  from  this  hour  ?  but  for 
this  cause  came  I  unto  this  hour.  Father,  glo- 
rify thy  name."  4  His  life  has  already  reached 
its  predestined  close ;  and  what  follows  has  no 
terror,  because  no  human  reality.  "Now  is 
the  judgment  of  this  world  :  now  shall  the 
prince  of  this  world  be  cast  out.  And  I,  if  I 
be  lifted  up  from  the  earth,  will  draw  all  men 
unto  me."  6 

He  meets  his  disciples  for  a  final  repast ;  yet 
not  as  in  the  other  Gospels  at  the  Passover,  for 

i  John  xii.  12-15.  2  *"•  I-7  !  Luke  vii.  37,  38. 

8  Matt.  xxvi.  39.  *  xii.  27,  28. 

6  xii.  31,  32. 


230  PAPIAS 

the  real  Paschal  lamb  is  to  be  offered  on  the 
morrow  ;  l  nor  yet  to  establish  a  covenant  or 
initiate  a  rite.  Beginning  with  a  beautiful  sym- 
bol of  humility,  in  which  the  washing  of  his 
disciples'  feet  is  sublimated  into  the  tie  which 
binds  the  Son  to  the  Father,  and  the  disciples 
to  each  other,  and  to  their  Master,2  he  fills  the 
hours  of  the  feast  with  long  discourse,  in  which 
the  mystic  speech  of  the  Gospel  reaches  its 
height  ;  culminating  in  a  vision  of  those  whom 
the  Father  has  given  him  as  with  him  in  hea- 
venly places,  and  beholding  the  glory  which 
has  been  his  from  the  beginning.3 

All  this,  we  feel,  is  not  the  work  of  a  falsi- 
fier, far  though  he  wanders  from  the  ancient 
narratives.  It  is  rather  the  work  of  one  to 
whom  the  facts  of  the  Judaean  ministry,  as  he 
has  learned  them,  are  divinely  significant,  and 
to  whom  the  hidden  meaning  of  such  events  is 
alone  of  real  account.  It  is  impressive  enough, 
this  fine  disdain  of  the  letter  which  killeth  ;  this 
absolute  absorption  in  the  spirit  which  giveth 
life.  It  points  us  to  many  deep  truths,  and  gives 
a  sublime  interpretation  to  the  story  of  the 
Christ.  The  process  has  its  perilous  side,  it  must 
be  confessed  ;  and  one  who  commits  himself  to 


1  John  xiii.  i,  2 ;  xviii.  28 ;  xix.  14. 

2  xiii.  4-15;  xvii.  21.  < 


8  xvii.  24. 


THE   MYSTIC  GOSPEL  231 

it  must  bid  farewell  once  for  all  to  the  historic 
sense,  to  which  the  commonest  facts  are  of 
infinite  worth.  It  removes  these  divine  events 
from  the  path  of  human  history.  Were  this 
the  only  record  which  had  survived,  we  might 
well  deplore  its  uncompromising  mysticism,  and 
long  for  a  touch  of  the  human  and  the  real. 
But  it  is  not ;  and  we  can  enjoy  its  spiritual 
interpretations  without  reserve. 

Among  many  points  of  resemblance  to  the 
earlier  Gospels  which  this  writing  contains, 
there  is  one  feature  wholly  peculiar  to  itself. 
It  comes  towards  the  close.  The  time  ap- 
proaches when  the  Son  of  God  must  depart. 
His  earthly  work  is  ended,  and  his  disciples 
will  see  him  no  more.  "  I  came  forth  from  the 
Father,"  he  says,  "  and  am  come  into  the  world : 
again,  I  leave  the  world,  and  go  to  the  Father." 1 
He  speaks  of  no  return  upon  the  clouds,  or 
messianic  reign  on  earth.  Yet  he  promises 
the  disciples  that  he  will  not  leave  them  wholly 
alone.  The  divine  resources  are  infinite ;  the 
angelic  hosts  numberless.  Among  them  is  one 
whose  function  it  is  to  take  the  place  of  the 
Logos  when  he  departs.  It  is  the  Paraclete  ;  a 
celestial  being  unknown  to  other  writers  of  the 
New  Testament,  but  evidently  familiar  to  the 

1  John  xvi.  28. 


232  PAPIAS 

readers  of  this  Gospel.1  As  in  other  systems 
of  the  period,  this  divine  agent  has  many  names. 
He  is  called  now  the  Spirit  of  truth  ;  now  the 
Holy  Ghost ;  now  he  seems  hardly  distinguish- 
able from  the  Logos  himself.2  Yet  his  charac- 
ter and  functions  are  clearly  marked.  He  is 
a  direct  effluence  from  the  Almighty,3  sent  to 
the  world  to  fill  the  place  of  the  Logos,  and  able 
to  come  only  after  the  Logos  has  left  the  earth, 
but  then  to  remain  with  the  believer  forever. 
"  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you 
another  Helper,  that  he  may  abide  with  you 
forever."  "It  is  expedient  for  you  that  I  go 
away  :  for  if  I  go  not  away,  the  Paraclete  will 
not  come  unto  you  ;  but  if  I  depart,  I  will  send 
him  unto  you."  4  He  is  to  disclose  to  the  dis- 
ciples the  secret  meaning  of  truths  which  they 
had  been  slow  to  comprehend,  and  reveal  the 

1  John  xiv.  1 6.     The  name  Paraclete,  translated  in  our 
version  "  Comforter,"  is  not  found  elsewhere  in  the  New 
Testament,  except  in  i  John  ii.  I,  a  writing  closely  related 
to  our  Gospel.     Its  proper  meaning  is  "  helper,"  or  "  advo- 
cate."    In  the  writings  of  Philo,  it  is  one  of  the  epithets  of 
the  Logos.     (De  Mund.  Opif.,  6  ;  Vit.  Mos.,  iii.  14.)     In  the 
Gnostic  theophanies  of  the  time,  the  Paraclete  is  one  of  the 
many  ^ons.     (Iren.  i.  I,  2;  Hipp.  vi.  30.)    Origen  seems  to 
have  been  the  first  to  give  the  word  the  meaning  of  Com- 
forter.    (Prin.,  ii.  7.) 

2  xiv.  17,  26,  1 6. 

8  xv.  26.  4  xiv.  16;  xvi.  7. 


THE   MYSTIC   GOSPEL  233 

new  teachings  which  till  then  they  nad  not 
been  prepared  to  hear.  "  I  have  yet  many  things 
to  say  unto  you,  but  ye  cannot  bear  them  now. 
.  .  .  But  the  Paraclete,  the  Holy  Ghost,  whom 
the  Father  will  send  in  my  name,  he  shall  teach 
you  all  things,  and  bring  all  things  to  your 
remembrance,  whatsoever  I  have  said  unto 
you." 1  The  Paraclete  has  ceased  to  be  a  fa- 
miliar name  to  our  ears,  that  of  Holy  Ghost 
having  early  superseded  it  in  Christian  theology ; 
but  its  presence  on  these  pages  is  an  interest- 
ing reminiscence  of  a  movement  which  long  agi- 
tated the  church,  and  gives  them  an  individual- 
ity distinctly  their  own.2 

This  closing  discourse,  though  so  profoundly 
mystical  in  its  spirit,  is  not  without  its  touches 
of  deep  affection,  passing  at  times,  as  the  high- 
est thought  so  often  does,  into  tones  of  passion- 
ate tenderness.  He  commends  to  the  Father, 
in  words  of  great  sublimity,  those  whom  he 
has  chosen  as  his  own.3  His  love  for  them  is 
even  as  the  Father's  love  for  him,  who  loved 
him  "  before  the  foundation  of  the  world."  His 
prayer  is  for  them  alone,  and  such  as  believed 
in  him  through  their  word.4  The  world  had  not 
listened  to  him  or  heard  his  voice,  therefore 

*  John  xiv.  26;  xvi.  4,  12,  13.  2  Note  NN. 

8  xvii.  1-26.  *  xvii.  6,  9,  20. 


234  PAPIAS 

could  have  no  place  in  his  remembrance ;  but 
all  the  more  are  his  disciples,  sanctified  through 
the  truth,  and  sharing  his  heavenly  glory,  to 
become  one  in  him.  He  even  declares  :  "  The 
glory  which  thou  gavest  me  I  have  given  them ; 
that  they  may  be  one,  even  as  we  are  one :  I  in 
them,  and  thou  in  me,  that  they  may  be  perfect 
in  one."1 

It  may  seem  strange  to  us  that  the  "love" 
which  so  pervades  these  farewell  words,  and 
forms  as  it  were  their  special  note,  should  not 
embrace  the  entire  world.  The  writer  has  freed 
himself  wholly  from  the  Jewish  limitations  which 
characterize  the  earlier  Gospels ; 2  why  does  he 
stop  short  with  the  little  circle  of  the  elect  ? 
We  cannot  answer  this  question.  We  can  only 

1  John  xvii.  22,  23. 

2  x.  16;  xi.  52.     Comp.  Matt.  x.  6,  7  ;  xv.  24.     As  one  in- 
.dication  of  the  wider  outlook  of  this  Gospel,  it  has  been  cal- 
culated that  the  word  kosmos  (/c^oytos)  is  found  in  Matthew, 
Mark,  and  Luke  fifteen  times ;  in  the  Fourth  Gospel  seventy- 
eight  times.    (Holtzmann,  Einleit.,  447.)    Now  and  then  this 
word  seems  to  receive  its  widest  significance  (vi.  51 ;  xii.  47. 
Comp.,  also,  i.  7  ;  xi.  52) ;  but  in  critical  passages  it  has  the 
limitations  given  it  in  xvii.  9.     The  same  uncertain  attitude 
is  to  be  noted  in  Paul's  writings.    (Comp.  Rom.  xi.  32  ;  i  Cor. 
xv.  22,  28 ;  Col.  i.  20,  with  i  Cor.  xv.  23 ;  2  Thess.  i.  7-9 ; 
ii.  10-12.) 

See  Toy's  Judaism,  p.  407  ;  Everett's  Gospel  of  Paul,  272, 
273- 


THE   MYSTIC  GOSPEL  235 

accept  the  fact  as  one  illustration  the  more  that 
the  thoughts  of  one  age  are  not  the  thoughts  of 
another,  and  must  not  be  forced  upon  another. 
Many  conceptions  which  eighteen  centuries  of 
human  activity  have  made  familiar  were  just 
suggesting  themselves  to  the  second  century ; 
and  even  the  mystic,  it  seems,  could  not  rise 
wholly  above  the  horizon  of  his  time.1  In  any 
case,  Christendom  had  still  long  to  wait,  as  we 
know,  for  the  thought  of  God  as  concerning 
himself  equally  for  all  his  creatures. 

The  closing  incidents  of  the  Messiah's  life, 
while  following  in  general  the  familiar  traditions, 
and  adding  some  important  details,2  resemble 
the  earlier  narratives  rather  as  ghostly  forms 
resemble  living  figures.  The  conversation  with 
Pilate,  though  addressed  to  Roman  ears,  is  an 
echo  of  the  theological  discourses  which  have 
preceded :  "  My  kingdom  is  not  of  this  world. 
.  .  .  To  this  end  was  I  born,  and  for  this  cause 
came  I  into  the  world,  that  I  should  bear  wit- 
ness unto  the  truth.  Every  one  that  is  of  the 

1  This  distinction  between  the  elect,  or  "  spiritual,"  and  the 
non-spiritual  is  found  in  all  the  Gnostic  writings  of  the  period. 
Comp.  pp.  157,  165,  172,  189. 

2  John  xix.  9, 13,  34.     The  mystic  flow  of  blood  and  water 
has  evidently  some  symbolic  significance ;  possibly  connected 
with  Zech,  xii.  10.     Comp.  Rev.  i.  7.     (Pfleiderer,  Urchrist., 
773-) 


236  PAPIAS 

truth  heareth  my  voice."1  The  guards  who 
accompany  Judas,  as  they  heard  the  voice  of 
the  Christ,  "  went  backward,  and  fell  to  the 
ground."2  There  are  no  human  revulsions  be- 
fore the  fatal  hour,  nor  any  real  sufferings  at 
the  end.  The  ideal  death,3  not  the  real,  was  the 
supreme  hour  in  this  tragedy.  No  cries  of  an- 
guish come  from  the  cross,  no  despairing  words  : 
"My  God,  my  God,  why  hast  thou  forsaken 
me  ? "  4  The  celestial  visitor  announces  with  a 
word  the  end  of  his  mission,  and  departs.  "  He 
said,  It  is  finished :  and  he  bowed  his  head,  and 
gave  up  the  ghost."  6 

1  John  xviii.  36,  37.  2  xviii.  6. 

8  xii.  23,  31 ;  xvii.  I,  4. 

4  See  Note  OO,  for  these  docetic  features. 

6  xix.  30.  The  Gospel  has  two  endings,  as  though  it  had 
circulated  in  two  different  forms.  After  a  formal  closing 
paragraph,  stating  the  theological  purpose  of  the  book  (xx.  30, 
31),  another  chapter  was  some  time  added,  which,  though 
found  in  all  the  manuscripts,  has  to  be  treated  as  supple- 
mentary. Some  explain  its  singular  character  by  referring 
it  to  a  time  when  the  claims  of  the  Apostles  Peter  and  John 
had  come  into  conflict  and  had  to  be  reconciled.  Peter  is 
restored  to  the  standing  he  had  lost  by  the  touching  com- 
mand (three  times  repeated,  to  correspond  with  the  three- 
fold denial),  "  Feed  my  sheep  ;  "  while  the  mysterious  "  dis- 
ciple whom  Jesus  loved "  is  exalted  to  a  still  more  mystic 
position  by  the  words,  "  If  I  will  that  he  tarry  till  I  come, 
what  is  that  to  thee  ? "  (xxi.  1 5-22.)  See  Pfleiderer,  Urchrist,, 
741,  etc.;  Jiilicher,  Einleit.,  240;  Weizsacker,  Apos.  Age,  ii. 
207. 


THE   MYSTIC  GOSPEL  237 

So,  by  the  middle  of  the  second  century,  a 
fourth  Gospel  takes  its  place  beside  the  other 
three,  destined,  in  so  far  as  it  is  accepted  at 
all,  to  open  wide  the  doors  of  the  young  faith 
to  the  entrance  of  mysticism.1  It  would  be  im- 
possible to  overrate  its  power,  or  be  blind  to  the 
splendid  assurance  and  sustained  imaginative 
force  with  which  it  lifts  the  entire  earthly 
scenery  of  Christianity  into  visionary  spheres. 
The  dividing  line  between  the  seen  and  unseen 
was  less  sharply  drawn  then  than  now,  and 
many  questions  which  force  themselves  upon 
our  thought  were  not  even  asked.  In  an  age 
when  a  human  emperor,  with  more  than  the 
foibles  of  ordinary  humanity,  could  be  seriously 
worshiped  after  death  as  a  god;  when  Olym- 
pus, a  well-known  mountain  in  Greece,  had 
hardly  ceased  to  be  regarded  as  the  abode  of 
all  the  gods,  or  Jupiter  to  be  revered  as  the  su- 
preme divinity,  though  sharing  the  basest  human 
passions,  it  was  quite  possible,  no  doubt,  to  think 
of  the  life  in  Galilee  as  real,  and  yet  conceive 
this  sublime  dream-world,  in  which  the  Logos, 
the  eternal  companion  of  Deity,  steps  down  for 
the  hour,  inhabits  a  human  form,  allows  his 
enemies  to  heap  upon  him  indignities  which 
touch  him  not,  then  passes  back  into  heavenly 

1  Note  PP  (Fourth  Gospel). 


238  PAPIAS 

realms,  leaving  a  subordinate  JEon.  in  his  place. 
If  Paul  could  imagine  the  Galilaean  preacher, 
who  had  died  but  yesterday,  and  whose  daily 
companions  he  had  known  and  talked  with,  to 
be  the  very  "Lord  from  heaven,"  still  more 
easily,  no  doubt,  could  the  writer  of  this  Gos- 
pel, who  had  held  no  such  living  relations  with 
Master  or  Apostles,  view  those  sacred  hours  in 
their  purely  celestial  aspects. 

We  cannot  quarrel  with  one  who  has  added 
so  exalted  a  page  to  the  world's  religious  litera- 
ture, or  asserted  so  sublimely  the  rights  of  the 
spirit  to  claim  all  things  as  its  own.  Man's 
spiritual  history,  Christianity  itself,  would  hardly 
be  complete  had  this  page  not  been  written,  and 
written  by  one  to  whom  this  was  the  truth  of 
truths.  We  must  not  quarrel,  either,  with  the 
place  he  has  won  for  his  Gospel  in  Christian 
hearts ;  or  the  success  with  which  he  has  effaced 
the  earlier  records,  and  made  his  interpretation 
supreme.  It  could  hardly  be  otherwise,  perhaps, 
so  long  as  the  love  of  the  marvelous  reigns  in 
the  human  soul,  or  the  pressure  of  stern  spirit- 
ual problems  drives  humanity  into  the  arms  of 
the  ideal.  If  religious  truth  is  a  thing  which 
must  never  be  looked  squarely  in  the  face,  then 
indeed  these  pious  endeavors  to  soften  the  hard 
outlines  of  reality  cannot  lose  their  value ;  and 


THE   MYSTIC   GOSPEL  239 

the  Fourth  Gospel  will  still  hold  its  place  as 
the  consummate  flowering  of  Christian  faith. 
Among  certain  schools,  as  we  know,  this  mystic 
volume  is  the  saving  of  Christianity,  rescuing 
its  facts  from  their  sordid  literalness.  It  is  the 
keynote  of  Christian  philosophy.  To  them, 
as  to  the  writer  of  this  Gospel,  the  unseen 
alone  is  real.  According  to  their  faith,  the  pre- 
existent  Logos,  eternal  effluence  from  Deity, 
alone  renders  possible  the  communion  of  the 
human  with  the  divine.  Without  the  Logos, 
man  and  God  remain  forever  apart.  The  meta- 
physical necessities  of  philosophy  dominate  the 
spiritual  necessities  of  the  soul,  and  the  Fourth 
Gospel  becomes  in  such  hands  an  imperious  oc- 
cultism, summing  up  once  for  all  God's  message 
to  the  world.  Fortunately  it  is  not  necessary 
to  contest  this  point  here.  In  an  age  when 
the  historic  temper  and  the  scientific  spirit,  un- 
known in  those  primeval  days,  have  come  at 
last  to  their  rights,  such  a  question  may  safely 
be  left  for  the  future  to  decide.  For  those  of 
us  who  cannot  for  a  moment  accept  any  single 
writing  as  the  last  word  of  Christianity,  the 
beauty  and  poetry  of  this  Gospel  still  retain 
their  charm,  and  it  stands  as  an  eloquent  chap- 
ter of  Christian  history. 

But  it  is  a  chapter  only,  not  the  whole.     If 


240  PAPIAS 

the  mystic  interpretation  of  the  life  of  Jesus 
was  beautiful,  that  life  was  also  beautiful ;  the 
more  beautiful,  the  more  distinctly  its  actual 
features  are  seen.  Its  secret  lies  in  its  reality. 
To  that  earthly  life  all  abstract  theories  owe 
whatever  significance  they  possess ;  and  when 
one  speculation  after  another  has  had  its  day 
and  been  forgotten,  it  is  the  life  itself  which 
will  remain  as  the  supreme  message  of  Chris- 
tianity to  the  race. 

Viewed  in  this  light,  these  four  Gospels  form 
a  unique  record  of  momentous  hours.  Neither 
can  take  the  place  of  the  other.  Without  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  we  should  never  have  known 
the  rapturous  dreams  which  the  young  faith 
could  excite,  or  the  daring  ideals  it  could  cre- 
ate ;  with  the  Fourth  Gospel  alone,  we  should 
never  have  guessed  that  Jesus  of  Nazareth  led 
a  human  life,  ending  in  a  human  tragedy.  For 
this  knowledge  we  must  still  turn  to  those  home- 
lier chronicles  in  which  facts,  too,  have  their 
rights,  and  which  claim  for  themselves  no  no- 
bler function  than  to  record  ingenuously  the 
comings  and  goings  of  one  sacred  year  in 
Galilee. 


APPENDIX 

Note  A,  p.  4.  Papias.  All  dates  of  this  period 
have  to  be  given  cautiously,  as  there  were  no  exact 
records.  The  earliest  allusions  to  Papias  associate 
him  with  Polycarp,1  who,  according  to  the  latest  in- 
vestigations, died  in  155  or  i66.2  This  would  simply 
place  Papias  in  the  early  part  of  the  second  cen- 
tury ;  but  a  single  expression  in  a  fragment  of  his 
writings  lately  discovered  enables  us  to  be  a  little 
more  precise.  In  speaking  of  certain  persons  raised 
from  the  dead  by  Christ,  he  says,  "  they  lived  until 
Hadrian." 8  As  monarchs  are  not  spoken  of  in 
this  way  till  after  their  death,  Papias  cannot,  ac- 
cording to  this,  have  written  his  work  before  138. 
Most  authorities  place  it  somewhere  between  130 
and  160.  Harnack  says,  140-160  ;  4  Holtzmann 
says,  "  after  Hadrian  ; " 6  Hilgenfeld  puts  Papias's 
death  at  i63;6  Jiilicher  at  165  ; 7  Zahn  thinks 

1  Irenaeus,  Har.,  v.  33,  4;  Eusebius,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  36, 
i  and  2.     Eusebius  is  perhaps  simply  following  Irenaeus. 

2  Harnack,  Chronologic  der  altch.  Literatur,  i.  335,  342. 

8  Neue  fragments  des  Papias,  etc.,  C.  de  Boor,  Gebhardt 
und  Harnack,  p.  1 70.     Comp.  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  3,  2. 
*  Chron.,  i.  357. 

5  Einleit.  ins  N.  Test.,  p.  94. 

6  Einleit.  ins  N.  Test.,  p.  52. 

7  Einleit.  ins  N.  Test.,  p.  189. 


242  APPENDIX 

Papias  wrote  about  125,  or,  "quite  as  likely,"  after 


Note  B,  p.  5.  Eusebius,  "  Hist.  Ecclesiastica,"  iii. 
39,  I,  "  AoyiW  Kvpta/cwv  e£i7y?jcreis."  "  Adyta,"  as  used 
at  this  time,  differed  from  "  Adyot  "  very  much  as 
<f  Sayings  "  differ  from  mere  "  words  "  or  "  re- 
marks." They  were  phrases  which  had  attained 
some  fixed,  or  perhaps  authoritative  or  ceremonial 
form.  In  our  New  Testament  "Adyta"  appears 
but  seldom,  and  exclusively,  with  perhaps  one  ex- 
ception, in  the  sense  of  prophetic  or  divine  utter- 
ances from  the  Old  Testament.2  The  "  words  of 
the  Lord  Jesus,"  in  the  New  Testament,  were  al- 
ways "  Xdyot."  8  Clem.  Romanus,  who  wrote  about 
the  end  of  the  first  century,  also  contented  himself 
with  "  Xdyot  "  in  referring  to  the  "  words  of  the 
Lord  Jesus,"  4  reserving  the  more  sacred  "  Adyta  " 
for  the  venerated  Prophets  of  the  ancient  times.6 
By  Papias's  time,  it  would  seem,  or  at  least  at  his 
hands,  the  words  of  Jesus  have  come  to  rank  with 
the  older  prophecies  as  divine  "  Sayings."  6  See 
Thayer's  Greek-English  Lexicon,  "Adyta." 

1  Kanonsgeschichte,  i.  80  1,  867. 

2  Rom.  iii.  2  ;  Acts  vii.  38;  Heb.  v.  12;  I  Pet.  iv.  n. 
8  Acts  xx.  35  ;  Mark  viii.  38  ;  xiii.  31. 

4  i  Cor.  xiii.  I  ;  xlvi.  7. 

5  i  Cor.  xiii.  4  ;  xix.  I  ;  liii.  I. 

6  Comp.   Poly  carp,  vii.  i  ;   Justin   Martyr,    Trypho,    18  ; 
Iren.  i.  8,  i  ;  Josephus,  Bell,  fud.,  vi.  5.  4. 


APPENDIX  243 

Note  C,  p.  6.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
Papias  has  to  do  here  with  a  current  of  tradition 
otherwise  wholly  unknown  to  Christian  writers. 
Aristion  and  John  the  Presbyter,  such  important 
personages  in  his  eyes,  and  standing  almost  on  the 
same  footing  with  the  Apostles,  are  never  even 
mentioned  elsewhere.  The  group  of  Presbyters  of 
whom  he  speaks  so  familiarly,  and  to  whom  he 
owes  so  much  of  his  information,  remain  also  a 
mystery.  Irenaeus,  to  be  sure,  speaks  in  much 
the  same  way  of  the  "  Presbyters,"  but  is  appar- 
ently drawing  at  second  hand  from  Papias.1  Pos- 
sibly, at  that  time  or  in  this  region,  all  survivors 
of  the  apostolic  circle,  or  apostolic  period,  were 
called  "elders,"  as  handing  down  the  apostolic 
tradition.2 

Note  D,  p.  9.  This  "  Gospel  according  to  the 
Hebrews,"  of  which  Eusebius  speaks,  awakens  a 
curiosity  which  unfortunately  cannot  be  wholly 
gratified.  Such  a  gospel  is  known  to  have  been 
in  circulation  among  the  Hebrew-speaking  Chris- 
tians for  four  or  five  centuries,  and  apparently  to 
have  been  the  only  one  used  by  them;8  it  may 
perhaps  have  been  the  oldest  Christian  Gospel,  and 

1  Har.,  ii.  22,  5 ;  iv.  27,  I  and  2  ;  v.  5,  i ;  33,  3  ;  36,  I. 

2  Euseb.  iii.  3,  I ;  v.  8,  I ;  vi.   14,  5 ;   also,  Weizsacker, 
Apostolic  Age,  ii.  332 ;  Lightfoot,  Essays  on  Super.  Religion, 
145;  Harnack,  Chron.,  i.  333  n. 

3  Iren.,  Har.,  iii.  i,  i ;  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  ii.  9;  Euseb. 
iii.  25,  5;  27,  4;  iv.  22,  8;  vi.  25,  4. 


244  APPENDIX 

the  source  in  some  unknown  way  from  which  our 
Matthew  was  drawn ; *  yet  we  are  little  better  ac- 
quainted with  it  than  if  it  had  never  existed.  Its 
history  has  been  most  singular,  and  possible  only 
under  a  chaotic  condition  of  Gospel  literature  quite 
inconceivable  to  us.  The  extracts  from  it  show 
that  it  was  of  a  most  archaic  type,  strangely  unlike 
our  Gospels ;  yet  in  spite  of  this,  it  was  unhesitat- 
ingly ascribed  to  Matthew,  without  any  sense  of 
incongruity.  Jerome,  in  the  fourth  century,  consid- 
ered it  important  enough  to  translate  into  Greek 
and  Latin,  thinking  at  the  time,  apparently,  that  it 
was  the  work  of  Matthew,  and  half  inclined  to 
think  so  after  finishing  his  translation.2  The  real 
relation  of  this  primitive  Gospel  to  the  canonical 
Matthew  is  one  of  the  unsolved  problems  of  criti- 
cism. Harnack  declares  it  wrapped  in  darkness, 
and  proceeds  to  give  very  clearly  what  we  "  do  not 
know"  about  it.8  For  a  reconstruction  of  the 
Gospel  from  the  few  citations  in  early  writers,  see 
Zahn,  "  Kanonsgesch.,"  ii.  686-704.  Compare,  also, 
Handmann,  "  Hebraer-Evang.,"  1888. 

Note  E,  p.  9.     Eusebius,  "  Hist.  Ecc.,"  iii.  39,  6. 
It  must  be  remembered  that  it  is  Eusebius,  not 

1  Iren.,  Har.,  iii.  I,  i ;  Origen  in  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  vi. 
25,  4.     Comp.  Schwegler,  Nachapos.  Zeitalter,  i.  202  ;  Reuss, 
Hist,  of  N.  Test.,\.  199;  Zahn,  Kanonsgesch.,  ii.  642. 

2  De  Vir.  III.,  2,  3.     The  whole  story  appears  in  Froth- 
ingham's   translation   of   De   Wette's  Introd.   to  N.    Test., 
§§  64,  65. 

3  Chron.,  i.  694  n. 


APPENDIX  245 

Papias,  who  refers  in  this  passage  to  the  Apoca- 
lypse. The  authorship  of  the  book  was  much 
questioned  in  those  days,  and  Eusebius  evidently 
shares  in  the  doubts  regarding  it.1  Papias  has 
nothing  to  say  about  the  Apocalypse,  but  we  have 
reason  to  infer  from  his  millennial  ideas  that  he 
was  acquainted  with  it.2  His  historian's  silence 
on  this  point,  if  he  is  silent,  weakens  the  argument, 
no  doubt,  drawn  from  his  silence  as  to  Luke  and 
John.  This  chance  remark  about  the  Presbyter 
John  —  an  altogether  tantalizing  personality  —  has 
given  his  name  great  vogue  in  recent  controver- 
sies about  both  Apocalypse  and  Fourth  Gospel. 

Note  F,  p.  20.  This  testimony  of  Papias  to  our 
New  Testament  Gospels,  which  I  have  given  so 
briefly,  but  I  trust  fairly,  has  caused  more  strife 
among  biblical  scholars  than  almost  any  other 
question.  As  their  opinions  are  of  course  far  more 
important  than  mine,  I  add  here  a  short  statement 
of  them.  Conservative  critics  in  general  hold  that 
the  omission  of  Luke  and  John  in  these  fragmen- 
tary accounts  was  accidental  only,  and  that  Papias 
shows  plainly  enough  his  acquaintance  with  all  our 
four  Gospels  ;  yet  to  deduce  this  from  his  language 
requires  various  and  very  conflicting  hypotheses  on 
their  part.  One  claims  that  our  Gospel  of  Matthew, 
originally  in  Greek,  was  current  at  this  time  in  a 
Hebrew  translation  for  Nazarene  churches,  and  that 
Papias,  and  Jerome  as  well,  mistook  this  for  the  ori- 
*  Comp.  vii.  25.  2  iii.  39,  n  and  12. 


246  APPENDIX 

ginal  Matthew.1  Another  thinks  that  the  primitive 
Gospel,  as  it  came  from  the  Apostle  Matthew's 
hands,  was  a  Hebrew  collection  of  the  Lord's  dis- 
courses, as  Papias  calls  it,  but  that  it  soon  grew  into 
its  present  form,  our  Matthew  being  unquestion- 
ably a  translation.2  Another  still  that,  although  our 
Matthew  cannot  be  a  translation  from  the  Hebrew 
Matthew  described  by  Papias,  nor  our  Mark  the 
same  Mark  which  he  mentions,  none  the  less  Mat- 
thew and  Mark  must  have  reached  their  present 
form  long  before  Papias's  time.8 

Among  less  traditional  commentators,  one  holds 
that  Papias  had  no  Gospel  of  Matthew  in  mind, 
but  only  a  Hebrew  collection  of  "  Sayings,"  as- 
cribed to  Matthew,  which  has  come  down  to  us 
in  the  form  of  our  much  transformed  and  enlarged 
Greek  version.4  Another  believes  the  Gospel  of 
the  Hebrews  to  be  the  original  form  of  Gospel 
literature  out  of  which  the  canonical  Matthew  and, 
ultimately,  Mark  grew,  while  the  writing  of  Mark 
described  by  Papias  corresponded  probably  with 
the  antique  Preaching  of  Peter. 6  Another  that 
Papias  was  acquainted  with  a  complete  Hebrew 
Gospel,  descending  indirectly  from  the  Apostle 
Matthew,  and  becoming  afterwards  our  Matthew, 

1  Tischendorf,  Orig.  of  Four  Gos.pels,  182,  184. 

2  Meyer  on  Matt.,  Kommentar.>  3-14.    1853. 

3  De  Wette,  Introd.  to  N.  Test.,  §§  97-100. 

4  Schleiermacher,  Werke,  ii.  361-393. 

5  Bauer,    Kanon.    Evang.,   535,    572  ;    also,   Schwegler, 
Nachapos.  Zeitalter,  i.  457. 


APPENDIX  247 

but  of  which  in  Papias's  time  there  was  no  author- 
ized translation.1  Another  traces  by  elaborate  criti- 
cal processes  a  forgotten  Matthew  and  forgotten 
Mark  hidden  under  our  present  Gospels,  and  be- 
lieves these  the  primitive  documents  to  which  Papias 
refers.2  Others  still  discover  as  many  successive 
layers  over  the  archaic  Mark  as  Dorpfeld  has  found 
at  Hissarlik  over  the  original  Troy,  and  arranged 
somewhat  after  the  following  fashion  :  i.  Primitive 
notes  taken  down  by  Mark.  2.  A  finished  draft 
from  these  notes  by  another  hand  and  with  later 
additions.  3.  A  primitive  Matthew,  correspond- 
ing with  the  "Sayings"  of  which  Papias  speaks. 
4.  A  Deutero- Matthew,  combining  these  "  Sayings  " 
with  Mark's  draft.  5,  A  Trito-Matthew,  corre- 
sponding with  our  Matthew.  6.  Our  Mark,  based 
on  all  the  preceding.8  Other  discussions  of  the 
subject  can  be  found  in  Renan,  "  Hist,  des  Ori- 
gines,"  vi.  124  ;  v.  79  n,  120  n,  175  n  ;  "  Supernatu- 
ral Religion,"  i.  449,  etc. ;  Keim,  "  Jesus  of  Naz- 
ara,"  i.  219;  "  Urchristenthum,"  221;  Jiilicher, 
"  Einleit.  ins  Neue  Testament,"  295  j  Lightfoot, 
"  Essays  on  Supernatural  Religion." 

In  view  of  these  distracting  hypotheses,  which 
could  be  indefinitely  multiplied,  it  would  be  quite 
superfluous  to  attempt  any  definite  conclusion  of 
the  matter.  So  far  as  the  present  treatise  is  con- 

1  Hilgenfeld,  Einleit.,  53-65,  452-520. 

2  Holtzmann,  Synop.  Evang.,  128,  248,  270,  368. 

8  Scholten,  Das  alteste  Evangelium,  240-252;  Weiff en- 
bach,  Die  Papias-Fragmente,  112,  116,  120-131. 


248  APPENDIX 

cerned,  it  is  sufficient  to  remember  that  Papias,  our 
earliest  authority  for  Matthew  or  Mark,  declares 
that  Matthew  (as  was  certainly  natural)  wrote  in 
Hebrew,  while  our  Matthew  is  in  Greek;  that 
Mark  reported  certain  fragmentary  discourses  of 
Peter,  while  our  Mark's  Gospel  is  a  formal  chroni- 
cle of  the  ministry  of  Jesus ;  and  that  if  Papias 
had  any  acquaintance  whatever  with  our  four  Gos- 
pels, he  attached  no  final  authority  to  them. 

Note  G,  p.  22.  Clement  of  Rome.  This  epistle, 
commonly  called  the  First  Epistle  of  Clement,  is 
headed  in  the  original  manuscripts  simply :  "  To 
the  Corinthians."  It  is,  therefore,  an  anonymous 
writing;  but  as  just  such  an  epistle  is  known  to 
Irenasus  1  and  Clement  of  Alexandria,2  and  ascribed 
by  them  to  Clement  of  Rome  or  to  the  Roman 
church  of  his  time,  the  argument  for  its  genuine- 
ness becomes  very  strong.  For  historic  purposes, 
it  makes  little  difference  whether  the  otherwise 
unknown  Clement  wrote  it  himself  or  not,  so  long  as 
it  represents  that  special  epoch  ;  and  if  we  are  to 
hold  by  any  of  these  early  post-apostolic  writings, 
none  has  greater  claim  than  this.  As  it  seems 
hardly  probable  that  all  the  writings  of  this  period 
should  have  been  lost,  it  is  easier,  on  the  whole, 
to  suppose  the  genuine  ones  to  have  survived  than 
the  fictitious.  Eusebius  evidently  has  little  doubt 
about  it  himself,  though  he  finds  it  necessary  to 

1  Hcer.,  iii.  3,  3. 

2  Strom.,  i.  7;  iv.  17.- 


APPENDIX  249 

defend  its  authenticity.1  The  testimony  of  Hege- 
sippus  and  Dionysius  is  of  less  account,  as  we  can- 
not be  sure  that  they  are  speaking  of  this  Epistle.2 

The  so-called  Second  Epistle  of  Clement  to  the 
Corinthians  is  no  longer  considered  genuine,  and 
belongs  to  a  later  period. 

The  genuineness  of  the  First  Epistle  is  claimed, 
'among  many  others,  by  Hilgenfeld,  Prleiderer, 
Weizsacker,  Renan,  Harnack,  J.  Reville.  Schwe- 
gler  pronounces  it  spurious,  as  being  Pauline,  while 
the  real  Clement  was  a  follower  of  Peter,  and  as 
being  later  than  Hebrews.8  The  author  of  "Su- 
pernatural Religion  "  considers  the  quotation  from 
Judith  decisive,4  and  places  it  at  about  A.  D.  120. 
Neander  thinks  it  "  genuine  in  the  main,  but  not 
exempt  from  important  interpolations."6  Renan 
says :  "  Few  writings  are  equally  authentic." 6 
Lightfoot :  "  Very  few  writings  of  classical  or 
Christian  antiquity  are  so  well  authenticated  as 
this  letter." 7 

Note  H,  p.  31.  In  this  account  of  the  First  Epistle 
of  Clement  to  the  Corinthians  I  have  tried  to  show 
by  a  few  definite  illustrations  the  character  of  the 
New  Testament  documents  which  the  author  had 
at  his  disposal.  Widely  different  inferences  are 

1  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  16;  iii.  38,  I. 

2  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  16;  iv.  22,  I ;  iv.  23,  n. 
8  Nachapos.  Zeitalter,  ii.  125-133. 

4  Iv.  4.  6  Hist,  of  Church,  i.  658. 

6  Hist.,  v.  319  n.  7  Epis.  of  St.  Clem.,  p.  4. 


250  APPENDIX 

drawn  from  these  facts  ;  and  the  conclusions  of 
scholars  much  more  competent  to  judge  than  the 
present  writer  can  be  found  in  such  works  as  Jiili- 
cher's  and  Zahn's  "Histories  of  the  Canon,"  or 
Jiilicher's  "Introduction  to  the  New  Testament." 
As  a  rule,  the  correspondence  of  a  brief  phrase  in 
Clement  with  a  phrase  in  either  of  our  Gospels  or 
Epistles  is  accepted  as  proof  that  the  writer  had- 
the  actual  Gospel  or  Epistle  before  him.  Zahn 
finds  in  Clement's  single  reference  to  Paul's  First 
Epistle  to  the  Corinthians  proof  of  an  entire  collec- 
tion of  Paul's  Epistles  at  this  time.1 

To  my  mind,  the  less  constraint  is  put  upon 
Clement's  language,  the  better;  and,  taken  upon 
its  face,  it  seems  to  point  to  a  period  in  the  forma- 
tion of  the  Christian  Scriptures  when  the  Old 
Testament  is  still  of  supreme  authority,  but  the 
Words  (or  perhaps  Discourses)  of  Jesus,  possibly 
in  some  collected  form,  and  the  writings  of  Paul, 
are  just  beginning  to  assert  their  place  beside 
it.2 

Note  I,  p.  32.  The  Ignatian  Epistles.  The  ques- 
tion of  the  Ignatian  Epistles  is  much  more  compli- 
cated than  that  of  the  Epistle  of  Clement,  and 
critical  opinions  about  it  are  far  more  conflicting. 
Neander  thinks  the  letters  much  interpolated,  and 
the  hierarchic  purpose  suspicious.  A  man  in  the 

1  Kanonsgesch.)  i.  813,  etc. 

2  Comp.  Weizsacker,  Apos.  Age,  ii.  38-46;  Holtzmann, 
Einleit.  ins  N.  Test.,  91,  106;  Renan,  Hist.,  v.  319. 


APPENDIX  251 

face  of  death,  he  believes,  would  have  more  fitting 
advice  to  give  than  obedience  to  bishops.1  Schwe- 
gler  rejects  all,  as  intrinsically  improbable,  placing 
them  at  about  igo.2  Lightfoot  thinks  the  Martyr- 
dom spurious,  but  the  Epistles  genuine,  and  written 
soon  after  ioo.8  The  author  of  "  Supernatural  Reli- 
gion "  pronounces  them  "  a  mass  of  interpolation 
and  fraud."  *  Renan  thinks  them  too  episcopal  for 
any  moment  short  of  200 ;  Romans  alone  being 
genuine.5  Harnack  believes  them  genuine,  but 
not  earlier,  perhaps,  than  I25.6  J.  ReVille  concedes 
their  genuineness,  places  them  at  112-117,  anc*  has 
an  ingenious  hypothesis  to  explain  their  episcopal 
tone.7  Zahn  admits  them,  with  the  tradition  that 
they  belong  to  the  time  of  Trajan,  /.  <?.,  before  117.* 
It  will  be  inferred  from  the  above  that  the  evi- 
dence for  or  against  the  Epistles  is  too  slight  in 
any  case  for  positive  conclusions.  I  have  felt  justi- 
fied in  classing  them  as  documents  of  the  first  half 
of  the  century,  whether  written  by  Ignatius  or  not, 
on  the  ground  that,  as  letters  of  Ignatius  to  eastern 
churches  are  distinctly  alluded  to  by  Polycarp 
about  i5o,9  as  Irenaeus  quotes  from  one  of  these 
letters,  though  giving  no  name,10  and  Origen  quotes 
from  another  by  name,11  it  is  on  the  whole  easier  to 

1  Hist.,  661,  191  n.  2  Nachap.  Zeitalter,  ii.  160-178. 

8  Apos.  Fathers,  i.  423 ;  ii.  363,  etc. 
4  i.  271.  6  Hist.,  v.  Int.  x-xxxi. 

•  Chron.,  i.  406.  7  Orig.  de  VEpis.,  i.  467-408. 

8  Kanonsgesch.,  i.  779.        9  Epis.  to  Phil.  xiii. 
10  H<zr.,  v.  28,  4.  n  Horn,  on  Luke,  6. 


252  APPENDIX 

accept  these  particular  letters  as  genuine  than  to 
suppose  the  real  letters  lost  and  these  invented  in 
their  place.  Irenaeus's  entire  silence  about  Igna- 
tius, while  having  so  much  to  say  of  Polycarp,  must 
be  taken  into  account,  as  Ignatius's  importance  to 
the  church  would  seem  so  much  greater ;  yet  the 
letters  themselves  must  be  old,  in  any  case.  If 
they  are  somewhat  later  than  the  times  of  Ignatius, 
so  much  the  stronger  is  their  evidence  as  to  the 
unsettled  condition  of  the  canon. 

Note  J,  p.  35.  Traces  of  New  Testament  in  Igna- 
tius. Holtzmann,  whose  "  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament "  is  one  of  the  latest  and  most  compe- 
tent treatises  on  these  matters,  and  who  places  the 
Epistle  of  Ignatius  at  possibly  as  late  as  170-180, 
holds  that  Ignatius  had  some  collection  of  Paul's 
Epistles  before  him,  though,  as  we  have  seen,  never 
directly  quoting  from  Paul.  Other  Epistles,  he 
apparently  knows  nothing  about,  nor  any  of  the 
Gospels  except  Matthew,  and  possibly  John.  As 
he  seems  equally  well  acquainted,  however,  with  the 
Gospel  to  the  Hebrews,1  Clement  of  Rome,  and 
"  The  Shepherd  of  Hermas,"  and  treats  them  with 
equal  respect,  Holtzmann  concludes  that  his  New 
Testament,  if  we  suppose  him  to  have  one,  must 
include  all  these  writings.  His  references  to  "  the 
Gospel,"  2  though  at  first  suggesting  some  specific 
book,  apply  equally  well,  and  in  some  cases  neces- 

1  Smyrn.j  iii.  2. 

2  Phil.  v.  I  ;  Smyrn.,  v.  I ;  viii.  2. 


APPENDIX  253 

sarily,  to  the  Christian  message  as  preached ;  while 
as  written  authority,  the  Old  Testament  is  still 
supreme.1  For  interpretations  of  the  obscure  pas- 
sage, Philadel.  viii.  2,  see  Harnack,  who  finds  here 
the  embryo  of  the  later  distinction  of  Old  Testa- 
ment and  New ; 2  also  Zahn,  who  finds  in  the  same 
passage  a  reference  to  the  written  Gospels.8 

Note  K,  p.  36.  The  Martyrdom  of  Poly  carp  ;  a 
Circular  Epistle  to  the  Church  of  Philomelium.  As 
Irenaeus,  who  is  cited  as  authority  for  this  Epistle,4 
had  apparently  never  seen  it,  or  thought  it  too 
unimportant  to  quote,6  and  as  the  supplementary 
paragraphs  show  that  it  has  passed  through  many 
forms,6  there  seem,  apart  from  its  mythical  charac- 
ter, ample  grounds  for  suspicion,  to  be  explained 
only  on  the  assumption  of  interpolations.  Light- 
foot  maintains  its  authenticity.7  Renan  also  de- 
fends it.8  Also  Neander.9  Harnack  maintains  its 
"  genuineness  and  substantial  integrity."  10  Euse- 
bius  knows  the  Letter  well,  and  quotes  from  it  in 
full.11 

Note  L,  p.  37.    Poly  carp  to  the  Philippians.     Ire- 

1  Eph.  v.  3  ;  Magnes.  xii. ;  Holtzmann,  EinL  ins  N.  Test., 
102,  103. 

2  Chron.,  i.  393  n.  »  Kanonsgesch.,  i.  845. 
4  Ch.  xxii.  6  Hcer.,  iii.  3,  4. 

6  xx.,  xxii.  7  Apos.  Fathers,  186. 

8  Hist.,  vi.  462.  »  Hist.,  i.  109. 

10  Chron.,  i.  341.  n  Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  15. 


254  APPENDIX 

naeus,  who  writes  within  a  generation  after  Poly- 
carp's  death,  speaks  of  "  a  very  powerful  epistle  of 
Polycarp  written  to  the  Philippians."  1  Eusebius 
refers  to  the  Epistle  repeatedly,  though  drawing 
his  information  apparently  wholly  from  Irenaeus.8 
In  view  of  this  testimony,  is  it  not  easier,  as  in  the 
case  of  Ignatius,  to  think  our  Epistle  essentially 
genuine,  notwithstanding  suspicious  features,3  than 
to  suppose  the  original  to  have  disappeared  and  a 
fictitious  letter  to  the  Philippians  to  have  taken  its 
place  ?  In  these  survivals  from  an  early  time,  it 
is  hardly  fair  to  give  the  fictions  all  the  chances 
against  the  realities. 

Schwegler  pronounces  the  Epistle  a  shadow  of 
the  Pastorals,  from  a  similar  source,  and  quite  un- 
worthy of  Polycarp  in  character  and  style.4  Hil- 
genfeld  accepts  the  Martyrdom,  but  rejects  the 
Epistle.5  Renan  takes  virtually  the  same  ground.6 
J.  Reville  finds  internal  and  external  evidence  of 
authenticity.7  Lightfoot  defends  the  Epistle  with 
great  research.8  Harnack  also,  though  assigning 
no  nearer  date  than  no-i54.9  This  seems,  on 
every  ground,  as  close  an  approximation  to  the 
date  as  it  is  possible  to  get.  Harnack  places  the 

1  Zfer.,  iii.  3,  4. 

2  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  36,  13;  iv.  14,  8;  v.  20,  8,  "epistles." 

8  ix.  i  comp.  with  xiii.  2 ;  also  vii.  i  as  compared  with 
Iren.  iii.  3,  4. 

4  ii.  154-  5  Einleit.,  72,  764. 

6  Hist.,  v.  Int.  xxviiL  1  Qrig.  de  FEpis.,  449-456. 

8  Apos.  Fathers,  ii.  »  Chron.,  i.  387. 


APPENDIX  255 

exact  date  of  Polycarp's  death  at  February  23, 155, 
or  possibly  I66.1 

Note  M,  p.  40.  According  to  Holtzmann,  Poly- 
carp  holds  the  same  relation  to  a  New  Testament 
canon  as  Ignatius.2  Paul  is  referred  to  in  the  same 
way  as  an  authoritative  teacher,8  while  reminis- 
cences, very  faint  it  is  true,  of  the  Epistles  to  Ro- 
mans, Galatians,  Corinthians,  Philippians,  Ephe- 
sians,  Thessalonians,  and  Pastorals,  can  be  traced. 
The  words  of  Jesus  in  the  Epistle  correspond  best 
with  Matthew,  if  either  of  our  Evangelists.  At 
the  same  time  Clem.  Romanus 4  and  Hermas  come 
among  the  author's  Scripture  authorities.5 

Note  N,  p.  40.  The  genuineness  of  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas  is  not  seriously  defended  to-day  j  and 
certainly  unless  Barnabas  had  greatly  changed 
since  his  earlier  days,6  he  could  hardly  have  writ- 
ten so  violent  a  polemic  against  the  Jews  as  this. 
Nor  would  he  have  spoken  of  the  Apostles  in  the 
manner  of  v.  9.  Nor  is  the  historic  evidence  suffi- 
cient to  save  it.  Clem.  Alexandrinus  is  the  first  to 
ascribe  the  Epistle  to  Barnabas,  naturally  liking  its 
allegorical  character ; 7  Origen  bears  the  same  testi- 
mony;8 but  Eusebius  ranks  it  unceremoniously 

1  Chron.,  i.  335-355.  2  P.  252. 

8  xi.  2  ;  xii.  I ;  also,  i.  3.  *  ii.  3. 

5  Einleit.,  104. 

6  Gal.  ii.  13 ;  Acts  xiii.  2,  3  ;  xv.  39. 

7  Strom.,  ii.  6,  7,  20;  v.  10,  8;  ii.  15,  18. 

8  Ce/s.,  i.  63. 


256  APPENDIX 

among  the  "  spurious."  *  Thus  there  is  no  posi- 
tive clue  to  its  date,  unless  we  hold  with  Renan 
that  iv.  4,  5,  points  unequivocally  to  Nerva,2  or  with 
Miiller,  that  xvi.  3,  4,  points  unequivocally  to  Ha- 
drian.8 Accepting  the  latter  passage  as  the  most 
significant,  this  would  point  to  about  120  as  the 
most  probable  date  for  the  Epistle.  Tischendorf 
says  117;  Renan,  97;  Hilgenfeld,  97;  "Super- 
natural Religion,"  117-138;  Jiilicher,  125;  Har- 
nack,  130  or  131  ;  Holtzmann,  96-125. 

It  is  a  little  curious  that  a  writing  which  ignores 
our  Gospels  more  completely  than  almost  any  other 
should  be  brought  forward  as  the  first  witness  to  the 
existence  of  a  canonical  New  Testament.  Thus  far, 
as  we  have  seen,  no  Christian  writing  has  ever  been 
called  "  Scripture,"  or  introduced  by  the  hieratic 
phrase,  "  It  is  written  ; "  but  in  this  Epistle  occurs 
the  passage,  "  As  has  been  written,  Many  called 
but  few  chosen."  4  If  this  really  means  that  the 
author  had  the  New  Testament  in  official  form  in 
his  hands,  one  cannot  help  asking  why  he  does  not 
avail  himself  of  such  sacred  documents  oftener. 
May  it  not  have  been  merely  a  slip  of  memory  on 
his  part ;  he  thinking  the  passage  was  from  the  Old 
Testament,  or  perhaps  having  some  such  verse  as 
2  Esdras  viii.  3  in  mind  ?  5  We  need  look  no  fur- 
ther than  ch.  iv.  3  of  this  same  Epistle,  or  Eph. 

1  Hist.  Etc.,  iii.  25,  4.  2  Hist.,  v.  374. 

8  Erkldrung  d.  Barnabasbriefes,  18. 

*  Barnabas,  iv.  14.     Comp.  Matt.  xxii.  14. 

6  Hilgenfeld,  38. 


APPENDIX  257 

v.  14  in  the  New  Testament,  to  see  how  easily  mis- 
takes of  this  kind  could  be  made.  Or  it  may  well 
have  been,  as  has  been  suggested,  that  the  words 
of  Jesus  were  treated  as  holy  writ  long  before 
Christian  Scriptures  existed,  and  we  have  here  the 
first  case  in  point.1 

Note  O,  p.  54.  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostle's. 
The  manuscript  of  the  "  Teaching  "  was  found  by 
Bryennios,  Metropolitan  of  Serrae  in  Mesopotamia, 
in  the  library  of  the  Most  Holy  Sepulchre  in  Con- 
stantinople. It  is  dated  A.  D.  1056  ;  and  contains, 
beside  this  treatise,  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,  and 
Epistles  of  Clement  and  Ignatius.  The  full  title 
of  our  work  is  "  AtSa^  TU>V  SwSeKa  'ATrocrroA.wv." 

The  historic  evidence  as  to  the  date  of  the 
"  Teaching  "  is  slight,  as  of  most  of  the  writings 
of  this  period.  The  first  token  of  the  existence  of 
such  a  work  is  found  in  this  passage  of  Clem.  Alex- 
andrinus  :  "  The  Scriptures  say  ;  Son  be  not  a  liar  ; 
for  lying  leads  to  theft."  2  As  no  such  saying  can 
be  found  in  either  Old  Testament  or  New,  the  pas- 
sage has  been  a  puzzle,  till  it  has  finally  turned  up 
almost  literally  in  the  "  Teaching."  8  This  seems 
to  prove  that  as  early  as  A.  D.  200  this  treatise  was 
old  enough  to  be  regarded  by  Clement  as  Holy 
Scripture.  The  first  to  mention  it  by  name  is  Euse- 
bius,  who  classes  among  spurious  scriptures  a  cer- 
tain "  Teachings  of  the  Apostles,"  4  which  we  have 

1  Harnack,  Hist,  of  Dogma,  ii.  40  n. 

2  Strom.,  i.  20.  8  iii.  line  62.  *  iii.  25,  4. 


258  APPENDIX 

reason  to  suppose  was  identical  with  the  present 
discovery.  Still  later,  about  367,  Athanasius  gives 
a  list  of  uncanonical  writings,  among  which  is  a 
"  so-called  Teaching  of  the  Apostles."  l  As  writ- 
ings thus  mentioned  and  discussed  in  the  fourth 
century  must  have  been  long  in  use,  these  notices 
also  would  refer  the  "  Teaching  "  back  in  all  prob- 
ability to  the  early  second  century.  The  internal 
evidence  is  judged  differently  by  different  critics. 
Harnack,  with  exhaustive  erudition,  declares  that 
it  must  have  followed  the  Epistle  of  Barnabas,2 
and  that  the  condition  of  the  church  portrayed  in 
the  book  points  to  the  period  I3i-i6o.8  Reville, 
with  equal  erudition,  declares  that  it  must  have  pre- 
ceded Barnabas,  and  points  to  125  at  latest,  possi- 
bly ioo.4  Hitchcock  and  Brown  say  120-160.  By 
general  consent,  I  think,  it  would  be  put  in  the  first 
half  of  the  century. 

Note  P,  p.  62.  The  historic  allusions  to  a  Gos- 
pel according  to  Peter, 'very  scanty  at  best,  have 
been  already  given.5  These  show  that  Origen  had 
seen  and  read  such  a  Gospel,  but  that  no  other 
mention  appears  till  the  next  century.  Eusebius 
enumerates  among  the  writings  of  the  Apostle 
Peter  two  Epistles,  a  book  of  Acts,  a  Gospel,  a 
Preaching  of  Peter,  and  an  Apocalypse.  Of  these 
he  considers  the  First  Epistle  alone  genuine;  by 

1  Harnack,  Lehre  der  z-wolf  Apostel,  8. 

2  A.  D.  130.  8  Chron.,  428-438. 
4  Orig.  de  VEpis.,  i.  243.               6  P.  55. 


APPENDIX  259 

which  he  means  that  neither  of  the  others  has 
been  quoted  by  ecclesiastical  writers.1  Still  later 
he  pronounces  it  distinctly  heretical.2  The  de- 
scription of  the  Gospel  which  Serapion  found  in 
use  at  Rhosse,  the  only  approach  to  a  description 
which  has  come  down  to  us,  corresponds  suffi- 
ciently with  our  manuscript  to  create  a  probability 
that  the  two  are  the  same  writing,  and  they  are 
accordingly  so  accepted.8  If  this  is  really  a  Gos- 
pel in  use  in  Asia  Minor  about  200,  and  already  the 
source  of  heretical  movements,  and  if  it  is  quoted 
without  comment  by  Origen  a  little  later,  it  must 
in  all  probability  have  been  written  by  the  middle 
of  the  second  century  at  latest.  If  the  resem- 
blances to  this  work  traced  in  Justin  justify  us,  as 
seme  think,  in  assuming  that  he  used  it,4  this  fixes 
its  early  date  still  more  positively.  Harnack  accord- 
ingly places  it  in  the  first  third  of  the  century;6 
Swete  at  about  i5o.6 

The  frequent  resemblances  between  this  frag- 
ment and  our  Four  Gospels,  accompanied  by  such 
violent  departures  from  the  Gospels,  make  the 
relation  of  the  fragment  to  those  writings  highly 
perplexing,  and  open  up  all  sorts  of  conjectures. 
Harnack  at  first  concluded  that  the  author  showed 
but  faint  knowledge  of  Mark,  if  acquainted  with 

1  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  3,  2.  2  iii.  25,  6. 

8  Comp.  Harnack ;  Swete. 

4  Apol.,  i.  40;  i.  35  ;  Dial,  cum  Trypho,  97.    Comp.  Har- 
nack, Bruchstuckey  etc.,  38. 

5  Pp.  40,  80.  6  Int.,  xlv. 


26o  APPENDIX 

him  at  all,  but  followed  Matthew  more  closely,  or 
the  circle  of  tradition  from  which  Matthew  drew ; 
while,  if  he  knew  Luke  and  John  at  all,  he  took  the 
liberty  of  correcting  them  very  freely.  "  Soviel  ist 
schon  gewiss,  dass  unser  Evangelium  ...  in  eine 
Zeit  gehort,  da  der  evangelische  Stoff  noch  im  Fluss 
war." 1  Afterwards,  on  reviewing  Schubert's  "  Com- 
position des  Pseudopetrin.  Evang.  Frag.,"  Harnack 
admitted  that  all  our  Gospels  were  probably  known 
to  our  author.2  The  proofs  of  this  he  finds  chiefly  in 
chaps,  xx.-lvii.  of  our  Gospel ;  which  show,  how- 
ever, that  the  writer,  if  he  knows  our  Gospels  at  all, 
recognizes  no  canonical  authority  in  them,  but  pre- 
fers, even  in  these  most  sacred  scenes  of  Christian 
history,  his  own  independent  traditions.  As  Har- 
nack says,  the  evangelical  matter  is  evidently  still 
in  flux. 

A  seductive  hypothesis,  which  carries  us  rather 
too  far  into  the  realm  of  conjecture,  connects  this 
Gospel  of  Peter  with  the  often-mentioned  Gospel 
according  to  Hebrews,3  which  was  used  exclusively 
for  two  or  three  centuries  by  the  Ebionites  or  He- 
brew-speaking Christians,4  and  which  even  before 
the  discovery  of  the  present  fragment  was  imagined 
to  be  the  Gospel  of  Peter  under  another  name.5 

1  Bruchstucke,  33-36. 

2  Literaturzeitung,  No.  I,  19  Jahrgang,  p.  17. 

8  p.  243.  *  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  27,  4. 

5  De  Wette,  Introd.  to  N.  Test.,  §  65 ;  Renan,  Hist.,  v. 
in;  Schwegler,  Nachapos.  Zeitalter,  i.  234  ;  Reuss,  Hist.  N. 
Test.,  i.  200. 


APPENDIX  261 

It  has  been  suggested,  too,  that  the  Gospel  to  the 
Egyptians l  was  probably  the  same  writing,  in 
altered  form,  perhaps,  and  for  other  latitudes.2  As 
Stanley,  in  descending  the  Congo,  found  that  river 
assuming  many  different  names  before  it  took  the 
one  familiar  to  the  world,  so  we  are  to  imagine 
this  earliest  Gospel  becoming  Ebionite,  Nazarene, 
Gospel  of  Egyptians,  Gospel  of  Peter,  Gospel  of 
Matthew,  in  turn,  before  losing  its  identity  in  the 
collections  which  finally  prevailed,  or  being  set 
wholly  aside  as  not  satisfying  the  wants  of  later 
generations. 

Note  Q,  p.  64.  Eusebius  mentions  several  writ- 
ings by  Justin,  of  which  the  two  "  Apologies  "  and 
the  "  Dialogue  with  Trypho  "  alone  survive  in  any 
genuine  form.8  Eusebius  quotes  from  two  Apolo- 
gies,4 but  as  his  citations  do  not  always  agree  with 
the  two  as  we  have  them  now,6  and  as  he  some- 
times speaks  simply  of  "  his  discourse," 6  it  is 
doubtful  whether  our  two  are  not  really  part  of  one 
Apology,  the  other  being  lost.  As  they  are  gener- 
ally accepted,  however,  together  with  "  Trypho,"  as 
genuine  writings  of  Justin,  this  point  is  of  compara- 
tively little  consequence.7  As  the  first  "  Apology  " 

1  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  iii.  9;  iii.  13. 

2  Renan,  Hist.,  vi.  185.  »  Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  18. 
4  ii.  13,  2-4;  iv.  16,  2-6.  5  iv.  17,  i. 

6  iv.  1 8,  2. 

7  Harnack,   Chron.,  274 ;  Neander,  ffist.,  i.   661 ;  Keim, 
Jesus  of  Nazara,  i.  188;  Renan,  vi.  367. 


262  APPENDIX 

speaks  of  the  war  of  Barchochebas  as  recent,  and 
fixes  its  own  date  as  about  J50,1  it  is  safe  to  place 
it  at  150—160.  The  second,  if  a  distinct  writing, 
was  probably  later  than  the  First ;  as  was  also 
"  Trypho,"  which  itself  cites  the  "  Apology."  2 

Note  R,  p.  74.  De  Wette,  after  a  thorough 
analysis  of  Justin's  writings,  can  find  only  three 
brief  sentences  which  follow  Matthew  literally,  and 
only  one  which  follows  Luke  precisely.  There  are 
three  others  which  vary  only  by  a  word ;  the  rest 
correspond  only  in  single  phrases,  or  mingle  the 
texts  of  Matthew  and  Luke,  with  foreign  matter 
added.  The  four  exact  passages  are  the  following : 

1.  "  They  shall  come  from  the  east  and  west,  and 
shall  sit  down  with  Abraham,  and  Isaac,  and  Jacob, 
in  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  but  the  children  of  the 
kingdom  shall  be  cast  out  into  outer  darkness."  8 

2.  "  Except  your  righteousness   shall  exceed  that 
of  the  Scribes  and  Pharisees,  ye  shall  in  no  case 
enter  into  the  kingdom  of  heaven."  4    3.  "  Every 
tree  that  bringeth  not  forth  good  fruit  is  hewn 
down  and  cast  into  the  fire."  5    4.  "  Be  it  unto  me 
according  to  thy  word."  6      Hilgenfeld,  after  an 

1  ApoL,  i.  29,  31,  46. 

2  Trypho,  120.     For  a  careful  study  of  these  dates,  see 
Harnack,  Chron.,  276-281. 

3  Matt.  viii.  n,  12;   Trypho,  76,  120,  140. 

4  Matt.  v.  20 ;   Trypho,  105. 

5  Matt.  vii.  19;  ApoL,  i.  16. 

6  Luke  i.  38 ;  Trypho,  100 ;  Introd.  to  N.  Tesf.,  §  66. 


APPENDIX  263 

equally  complete  examination,  finds  three  cases  of 
exact  quotation  from  Matthew,1  and  four  almost 
exact.2  One  also  from  Luke.8  None  from  Mark 
or  John,  though  distant  resemblances  to  both.4 

Note  S,  p.  83.  Justin's  Gospel.  Readers  of  this 
volume  will  not  need  to  be  assured  that  the  writer 
is  in  no  sense  a  biblical  expert  or  specialist,  and 
that  his  critical  conclusions  carry  no  weight  beyond 
the  evidence  brought  forward  in  their  support.  The 
exact  character  of  Justin's  Memoirs  or  Gospels 
has  always  been  the  subject  of  excited  contro- 
versy, and  is  no  nearer  a  final  solution  to-day 
than  ever  before.  Some  idea  of  the  present  state 
of  the  question  can  be  obtained  from  the  following 
summary. 

De  Wette,  in  his  "  Introduction  to  the  New 
Testament,"  was  one  of  the  first  to  subject  Justin's 
citations  to  critical  examination  j  and  arranges  the 
entire  material  side  by  side  with  the  corresponding 
passages  from  our  Gospels..  From  this  comparison 
it  appears,  as  we  have  seen,5  that  there  are  only 
four  short  sentences  where  Justin  follows  exactly 
the  present  text  of  our  Gospels,  all  of  which  but 
one  are  the  words  of  Jesus  himself.  In  the  narra- 
tive or  historical  passages  fragments  of  Matthew 
and  Luke,  chiefly  Matthew,  are  freely  and  very 


O)  105,  103,  107. 
2  ApoL,  i.  16;   Trypho,  49,  76,  100. 
8  Trypho,  105. 
*  Evang.  Justin's,  pp.  139-251.  6  Note  R. 


264  APPENDIX 

loosely  combined,  with  additions  of  his  own  or  from 
foreign  sources.  Seven  cases  are  given  which  can- 
not be  found  in  either  Gospel.  One  extract  vaguely 
suggests  Mark,  three  resemble  John.  From  all  this 
De  Wette  concludes  that  Justin  probably  had  our 
four  Gospels  in  his  hands,  together  with  some  un- 
canonical  writing  such  as  the  Gospel  of  the  Hebrews 
or  of  Peter.1 

Hilgenfeld,  after  a  similar  examination,  finds 
three  exact  quotations,2  and  four  almost  exact,8  all 
from  Matthew.  In  the  case  of  Mark  and  Luke 
he  finds  resemblances  or  reminiscences  enough  to 
indicate  that  Justin  must  have  had  before  him 
some  primitive  form  of  these  Gospels.  As  to  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  the  writer  of  that  Gospel  and  Jus- 
tin must  have  been  drawing  from  some  common 
source.  Hilgenfeld's  conclusion  is  that  "Justin 
used  chiefly  the  Gospel  of  Peter  (the  original  of 
our  Mark),  together  with  some  revised  form  of  Mat- 
thew; and  Luke  in  very  subordinate  fashion."  4 

Schwegler  holds  that  Justin's  loose  Gospel  cita- 
tions, as  compared  with  his  much  more  precise  cita- 
tions from  the  Septuagint,  prove  that  he  could  not 
have  known  even  our  Matthew,  much  less  the  other 
Gospels,  but  used  exclusively  some  primitive  Gospel, 
apparently  that  called  the  Hebrews  or  Peter.5  As 

1  §§  66,  67. 

2  Trypho,  105,  103,  107. 

8  ApoL,\.  16;   Trypho,  49,  76,  100. 
4  Evang.  Justin's  ^lnd  Martian's,  304. 
6  Nachapos.  Zeitalter,  i.  233. 


APPENDIX  265 

Justin  was  born  in  Palestine,  this  Gospel  would 
naturally  have  fallen  into  his  hands. 

Zeller,  reviewing  Hilgenfeld's  conclusions,  holds 
that  Justin,  while  following  chiefly  some  form 
of  Matthew,  and  using  also  some  uncanonical 
Gospel,  yet  drew  directly  from  Luke.  "  If  Justin 
had  one  of  our  canonical  Gospels  before  him,  it 
could  only  have  been  Luke."  l 

Holtzmann  thinks  our  Gospels  were  in  Justin's 
hands,  yet  not  in  their  canonical  fourfold  form  ; 
his  use  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  being  by  no  means 
that  of  a  follower  of  its  authority,  but  rather  an 
independent  handling  of  the  same  material.2 

Zahn,  who  insists  that  Justin  had  all  our  four 
Gospels  in  his  hands,  in  their  canonical  form, 
allows  that  he  used  great  freedom  in  handling 
them,  as  well  as  in  mingling  with  them  the  Gospel 
of  Thomas,  the  Proto-Gospel  of  James,  and  other 
apocryphal  matter.  "  Eben  diese  Freiheit  beweist 
Justin  sowohl  durch  die  absichtslose  Nachlassig- 
keit  mit  welcher  er  die  Ev.  Texte  anfuhrt,  als 
durch  die  Kiihnheit  mit  welcher  er  Sie  nicht  selten 
nach  seinen  Absichten  umgestaltet  und  erweitert ; 
endlich  auch  durch  die  unbedenkliche  Verbindung 
zweifelh after  tJberlieferungen  mit  dem  Inhalt  der 
Evangelien." 8 

The  recent  discovery  of  the  fragment  of  the  Gos- 
pel of  Peter  4  gives  new  plausibility  to  the  theory 

1  Acts  of  the  Apostles,  i.  121,  138. 

2  Einleit.  ins  N.  Test.,  98,  467. 

8  Kanonsgesch.,  i.  558.  *  Note  P. 


266  APPENDIX 

of  Justin's  use  of  a  primitive  Hebrew  or  Peter  Gos- 
pel. There  are  several  striking  points  of  resem- 
blance between  the  two.1  Swete  claims  that  these 
are  no  proof  that  Justin  knew  the  Gospel  of  Peter.2 
Harnack,  on  the  contrary,  believes  that  such  a 
Gospel  was  in  his  hands  among  others ;  and  that 
the  much  contested  expression  in  "  Trypho,"  s  "  his 
Memoirs,"  means  "Memoirs  of  Peter,"  referring 
to  this  Gospel.4 

It  seems  a  fair  inference  from  the  above  that  on 
the  strictest  construction  of  the  case,  and  even 
assuming  that  Justin  had  our  four  Gospels  in  his 
hands,  those  Gospels  had  not  yet  assumed  such 
official  character  that  he  hesitated  to  alter  or  min- 
gle them  at  will,  or  to  place  other  Gospel  literature 
on  the  same  level  with  them.  This  means,  of  course, 
that  the  Gospel  canon  was  still  in  the  early  process 
of  formation. 

Note  T,  p.  95.  Reconstructions  of  Marcion's 
Gospel,  drawn  chiefly  from  the  writings  of  Tertul- 
lian  and  Epiphanius,  can  be  found  in  De  Wette's 
"  Introduction  to  the  New  Testament;"  Hilgenf eld's 
"  Kritische  Untersuchungen  iiber  die  Evang.  Jus- 
tin's, der  Clem.  Horn,  und  Marcion's,"  1850 ;  Volck- 
mar's  "  Das  Evang.  Marcion's,"  1852.  Zahn,  in 
his  "  Geschichte  des  neutestamentlichen  Kanons " 
(1889-92),  gives  a  complete  restoration  of  both 

1  Harnack,  Bruchstucke  des  Evang.  des  Petrus,  37-39. 

2  Akmim  Fragments,  xxxv.  a  106. 
*  Harnack,  39. 


APPENDIX  267 

Gospel  and  "  Apostolicon,"  based  on  researches  of 
such  extraordinary  minuteness  as  to  leave  appar- 
ently but  little  for  future  scholars  to  add.  He  has 
so  much  to  say,  however,  of  the  carelessness  with 
which  both  Tertullian  and  Epiphanius  copied  Mar- 
cion's text,  that  we  see  how  hard  it  is  at  best  to  get 
hold  of  the  actual  Marcion.1 

The  conclusions  reached  by  these  different  au- 
thorities may  be  thus  stated  :  — 

De  Wette  holds  that  the  charges  against  Marcion 
were  greatly  exaggerated  j  that  the  changes  which 
he  made  in  Luke  were  sincere  attempts  to  purify 
what  he  considered  an  impure  text,  though  he  was 
often  influenced,  no  doubt,  by  his  dogmatic  preju- 
dices;  that  "he  was  acquainted  with  the  other 
Gospels,  or  some  of  them  :  these  he  at  first  ac- 
cepted, but  afterwards  rejected,  as  coming  from 
Jewish  Apostles  and  containing  Jewish  opinions." 
Marcion's  copy  of  Luke  was  not  the  primitive  form 
from  which  our  Luke  was  taken,  though  many  of 
his  readings  were  older  and  purer  than  those  of 
his  critics.2 

Volckmar,  a  much  less  conservative  critic  than 
De  Wette,  sums  up  his  study  with  the  words : 
"  Marcion's  Gospel  cannot  be  considered  a  falsi- 
fication or  mutilation  of  the  canonical  Gospel,  nor 
yet  an  older  original  form  of  Luke,  but  rather  a 
Gnostic  revision  of  Luke,  consistent  and  altogether 
spirited  in  form,  and  based  upon  the  oldest  codices ; 

1  Kanonsgesch.,  ii.  411,  453. 

2  Introd.  to  N.  Test.,  §§  70-72. 


268  APPENDIX 

while  our  Luke  is  a  much  remodeled  form,  in  Paul- 
ine spirit,  of  the  original  Gospel  j  which  original  is 
to  be  traced,  if  it  exists  at  all,  in  the  Gospel  of 
Mark." 1 

Hilgenfeld  points  out  many  instances  in  Mar- 
cion's  Gospel  of  more  trustworthy  readings  than 
those  of  his  opponents,  but  thinks  that  the  omis- 
sions show  so  obvious  a  purpose  that  it  must  be 
regarded  as  a  revision  of  the  Luke  then  current. 
It  was  not  our  Luke,  however,  and  no  more  a 
falsification  of  it  than  the  later  canonical  Gospels 
are  falsifications  of  the  earlier.  It  was  an  honest 
effort  to  purify  the  existing  text.3 

Zahn  recognizes  Marcion  as  a  genuine  reformer, 
who  found  the  Scripture  texts  in  a  corrupt  state, 
and  set  to  work  conscientiously  to  correct  them. 
He  was  the  first  to  undertake  the  establishment  of 
a  New  Testament  canon.  In  many  cases  where 
Tertullian  and  Epiphanius  charge  him  with  muti- 
lating the  established  Gospels,  his  readings  were 
older  and  purer  than  theirs.  His  own  Gospel  was 
the  result  of  these  scholarly  labors.8  From  these 
unpromising  facts,  by  applying  his  characteristic 
method,  Zahn  produces  all  the  results  he  desires, 
namely :  i.  Marcion's  Gospel,  beside  its  general 
resemblance  to  Luke,  shows  faint  similarities  too, 
in  isolated  passages,  to  expressions  used  by  the 
other  Evangelists ;  therefore  he  had  all  four  Gospels 

1  Das  Evang.  Marcion's,  267. 

2  Kritische  Untersuchungen,  442-475. 

8  Kanonsgesch.,  i.  620,  632,  650;  ii.  411. 


APPENDIX  269 

in  full  form  before  him.1  2.  Marcion,  as  a  partisan 
of  Paul  and  therefore  hostile  to  the  older  Apostles, 
even  if  he  knew  that  certain  Gospels  had  emanated 
from  those  Apostles,  would  presumably  refuse  to 
mention  their  names  ;  therefore  Marcion  knew  the 
true  authorship  of  Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John.2 
3.  As  some  of  Marcion's  peculiar  readings  are  com- 
mon to  him  with  several  contemporary  writers, 
these  must  belong,  not  to  an  older  original,  but 
(by  a  recognized  axiom  of  textual  criticism)  to  a 
corrupt  form  of  some  older  original ;  therefore  our 
four  Gospels  must  have  been  current  and  in  public 
use  long  enough  to  have  become  corrupted,  that 
is,  fully  half  a  century.8  4.  As  we  know  from  in- 
dependent testimony  that  certain  writings  of  the 
Apostles  were  read  in  public  at  this  time,  together 
with  the  Old  Testament  Prophets,4  therefore  our 
four  Gospels  were  so  read ;  and  to  have  secured 
this  dignity  must  have  been  part  of  the  established 
Scriptures  from  the  beginning  of  the  century.5 

The  above  conclusions,  however  divergent  from 
each  other,  agree  in  their  testimony  that  Marcion 
was  engaged  in  a  sincere  and  intelligent  attempt 
to  preserve  the  purity  of  the  Christian  records,  and 

l  Kanonsgesch.,  i.  674,  680.  2  i.  663,  676. 

8  i.  638,  639.  For  a  full  statement  of  this  ingenious  argu- 
ment, see  i.  675. 

*  Justin,  Apol,,  i.  67. 

5  i-  534>  557-  As  Clement's  and  Soter's  Epistles  to  the 
Corinthians  were  also  read  in  public,  it  would  seem  to  follow 
that  these  Epistles  also  were  part  of  the  canonical  Scriptures. 
(Euseb.  iii.  16;  iv.  23,  n.) 


270  APPENDIX 

that  he  showed,  on  the  whole,  a  more  scholarly 
acquaintance  with  the  ancient  texts  than  his  oppo- 
nents. Indeed,  the  criticisms  of  Marcion  by  Ter- 
tullian  and  Epiphanius  reveal  quite  as  unsettled  a 
condition  of  the  Christian  Scriptures  as  Marcion's 
own  writings.  What  a  queer  version  of  Luke,  for 
instance,  must  have  been  in  Tertullian's  hands,  if 
he  could  find  in  it,  "  I  came  not  to  destroy  but  to 
fulfill ; "  "I  am  not  sent  but  unto  the  lost  sheep  of 
the  house  of  Israel ; "  and  "  I  am  not  come  to  send 
peace  but  a  sword," — all  of  which  passages  are 
found  to-day  not  in  Luke,  but  in  Matthew.1  It 
should  be  remembered,  also,  that  if  Marcion  was 
really  selecting  from  four  existing  Gospels  the  one 
which  would  best  suit  his  peculiar  doctrines,  Mat- 
thew or  Mark  would  have  served  his  purpose  quite 
as  well  as  Luke,  and  John  far  better.  And  why, 
if  he  found  any  recognized  apostolic  authority  to 
support  him,  should  he  have  refrained  from  alluding 
to  it  ?  Whatever  the  verdict  upon  Marcion,  the 
situation  is  significant  as  revealing  the  inevitable 
changes  which  the  biblical  writings  were  undergoing 
while  awaiting  their  final  revision. 

Note  U,  p.  96.  Beside  the  writers  given  in  the 
text,  there  was  a  certain  Aristides,  well  known  in 
the  time  of  Eusebius,  who  is  said  to  have  addressed 
to  the  Emperor  Hadrian  or  Antoninus  Pius  a  de- 
fense of  the  faith  similar  to  that  of  Justin.2  It  has 

1  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  iv.  7 ;  iv.  29. 

2  Hist.  Ecc.>  iv.  3,  3 ;  Jerome,  De  Vir.  III.,  20. 


APPENDIX  271 

been  preserved,  however,  in  so  imperfect  a  form, 
and  has  so  little  bearing  upon  our  present  inquiry, 
containing  no  reference  to  any  New  Testament 
passage,  that  it  calls  for  no  special  notice.1 

Hegesippus,  one  of  the  most  voluminous  writers 
of  the  time,  though  coming  towards  the  end  of  the 
century  (173-190),  and  known  only  through  very 
brief  extracts  from  his  works,  has  some  interest  for 
us  as  showing  how  general  was  the  use,  for  this 
entire  period,  of  other  Gospels  than  the  four  which 
happen  to  have  survived.  One  of  his  authorities, 
beside  the  preaching  of  the  Apostles  and  the  un- 
written traditions  of  the  Jews,  seems  to  have  been 
the  Gospel  to  the  Hebrews.2  He  preserved  many 
incidents,  otherwise  unknown,  relating  to  the  bro- 
thers of  Jesus  and  their  descendants,  who  appeared 
upon  his  pages  as  rulers  of  the  infant  churches.8 
James,  the  brother  of  Jesus,  figured  there  as  the 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem,  devoting  himself  at  the  same 
time  to  the  most  rigid  observance  of  the  Jewish 
ceremonial.4 

Note  V,  p.  102.  Tatian's  Diatessaron.  Tatian 
was  an  Assyrian  by  birth  (ad  Graec.  xlii.)  and  came 
to  Rome  in  Justin's  time,  becoming  his  disciple. 
His  so-called  "Diatessaron"  would  throw  much  light 

*  See  Hennecke,  Die  Apologie  des  Aristides  ;  Texts  and 
Studies ;  Camb.  i.  i ;  Ante-Nic.  Lib.,  ix.  259,  etc.;  Kriiger, 
Early  Christ.  Lit.,  101. 

2  Euseb.  iv.  8,  i  and  2 ;  iv.  22,  8. 

8  iii.  20,  1-6 ;  iii.  32.  *  ii.  23,  3-18. 


272  APPENDIX 

on  the  problem  of  the  early  Gospels,  if  we  could 
judge  more  accurately  of  its  character ;  but  it  is 
nowhere  mentioned  until  the  fourth  century,1  and 
survives  only  in  late  manuscripts,  after  passing 
through  many  hands.  As  the  earlier  writers  know 
Tatian  only  as  a  heretic  and  ascetic,  and  make  no 
allusion  to  his  "  Diatessaron,"  it  cannot  have  had 
great  vogue  at  the  time,  though  in  the  Syrian 
churches  it  seems  to  have  been  the  only  Gospel 
in  use  for  two  centuries.2  Eusebius  and  Epipha- 
nius,  though  mentioning  the  work,  had  evidently 
never  seen  it.  The  term  "  Diatessaron,"  according 
to  the  usage  of  the  time,  may  mean  simply  har- 
mony? so  that  we  cannot  judge  positively  how 
many  Gospels  he  used  in  constructing  his  work. 
If,  however,  as  is  commonly  understood,  it  means 
strictly  a  "  harmony  of  four,"  it  serves  as  evidence 
of  the  separation  of  our  Gospels  from  the  rest  by 
A.  D.  175,  or  thereabouts.  It  should  be  added 
that  the  "  Diatessaron,"  as  reconstructed  by  re- 
cent scholars,  does  not  correspond  very  closely 
with  the  accounts  given  of  it  in  ancient  times ;  and 
if  this  is  really  Tatian's  work,  there  seems  no  con- 
ceivable reason  for  the  bitter  opposition  to  it,  or 
why  Bishop  Theodoret  should  have  cast  two  hun- 

1  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  29,  6.     The   Teaching  of  Addceus 
the  Apostle,  which  also  contains  a  reference  to  the  Diatessa- 
ron, is  evidently  later  than  Eusebius. 

2  Iren.,  Hczr.,  i.  28,  I ;  iii.  23,  8 ;  Clem.  Alex.,  Strom.,  iii. 
12 ;  Epiphanius,  H<zr.,  xlvi.  I ;  Jerome,  De  Vir.  III.,  29. 

8  Renan,  Hist.,  vi.  503  n;  Jiilicher,  Einleit.,  301. 


APPENDIX  273 

dred  of  them  out  of  his  churches.1  See  Gebh.  und 
Harnack,  "  Altchrist.  Literatur,"  i.  485-496  ;  Krii- 
ger,  "  History  of  Early  Christian  Literature,"  120, 
365  ;  Zahn,  "  Diatess.  Tat. ;  "  "  Encyclopaedia  Bri- 
tannica  "  (gth  ed.),  article  "  Tatian,"  by  Harnack ; 
G.  F.  Moore,  in  "  Journal  of  Bib.  Lit,"  ix.  pt.  2  j 
Hill's  "Earliest  Life  of  Christ,"  1894;  Scholten, 
"  Die  altesten  Zeugnisse,"  93-98. 

Note  W,  p.  104.  The  Synoptic  Gospels.  If  the 
sketch  given  in  the  text  is  correct,  it  would  follow, 
of  course,  that  our  three  earlier  Gospels  (the  so- 
called  Synoptics),  judged  by  historic  evidence, 
cannot  have  assumed  anything  like  their  present 
form  before  the  middle  of  the  second  century. 
Though  this  conclusion  seems  to  me  to  follow 
naturally  from  the  teachings  of  modern  New  Tes- 
tament criticism,  yet  I  cannot  claim  that  it  is 
generally  accepted;  and  I  must  leave  the  more 
competent  authorities  on  these  points  to  speak  for 
themselves.  While  few  critics  nowadays  assume 
that  these  Gospels  came  directly  from  the  hands  of 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke,  yet  most  of  them,  on 
grounds  of  internal  testimony,  assign  all  three  to 
apostolic  times,  though  varying  widely  as  to  exact 
dates  or  the  order  in  which  the  three  appeared. 

Matthew  is  generally  placed  at  about  A.  D.  70, 
owing  mainly  to  the  nature  of  its  allusions  to  the 
temple  and  to  the  destruction  of  Jerusalem.  It  is 
noticeable,  however,  that  while  some  are  positive 

1  Theod.,  Har.  Fab.,  i.  20. 


274  APPENDIX 

that  it  was  written  before  yo,1  others  are  equally 
positive  that  it  was  written  after  jo.2  Critics  like 
Bunsen,  Schenkel,  B.  Weiss,  and  Holsten  place  it 
soon  after  70  ;  Reville,  Hilgenfeld,  Kostlin,  Haus- 
rath,  put  it  in  the  Flavian  period,  between  70  and 
96.8  On  similar  grounds,  Mark  is  placed  by  Weiss, 
Pfleiderer,  Bruckner,  before  70  •  by  Weizsacker, 
Beyschlag,  Volckmar,  Hilgenfeld,  Holsten,  at  dif- 
ferent dates  between  70  and  80.  Harnack  says  65 
to  85. 4  As  to  Luke,  there  is  greater  divergence ; 
some  placing  even  this  Gospel  before  the  destruc- 
tion of  Jerusalem,  the  majority  putting  it  as  late 
as  80  or  95. 6  Even  so  un conservative  a  critic  as 
Renan  assigns  these  approximate  dates  :  namely, 
Matthew,  85  ;  Mark,  76  ;  Luke,  95. 6 

It  would  be  unfair  to  these  critics  themselves, 
however,  to  assume  that  these  dates,  confidently  as 
they  appear  to  be  given,  are  meant  to  be  taken 
quite  in  the  sense  in  which  dates  are  affixed  to 
modern  writings.  Renan,  for  instance,  while  speak- 
ing after  the  above  fashion  in  one  volume,  in  an- 
other, when  speaking  of  the  Gospels  in  circulation 
about  150,  describes  them  as  "more  or  less  in  con- 
formity with  what  we  call  the  synoptic  type."7 
And  again  :  "  The  Gospels  remained  till  towards 
1 60,  or  even  later,  private  documents,  confined  to 

1  Matt.  xxiv.  2,  29,  34. 

2  xxii.  7 ;  xxiv.  48 ;  xxviii.  19. 

8  See  Holtzmann,  Einleit,,  373. 

4  Chron.,  653.  5  Holtzmann,  as  above. 

6  Hist.  v.  125,  174  n,  254.  7  vi.  357. 


APPENDIX  275 

small  circles.  Each  locality  had  its  own,  and  for 
a  long  time  no  one  scrupled  to  fill  out  or  combine 
the  texts  already  accepted." *  One  cannot  help 
conjecturing  that  most  modern  commentators  have 
similar  reservations  in  mind  in  assigning  early  dates 
to  any  of  the  "  Synoptics."  Harnack,  for  example, 
fixes  Matthew  at  70  to  75,  as  being  later  than  Mark. 
In  another  passage,  however,  he  declares  it  quite 
possible  that  while  Matthew  belongs  for  the  most 
part  to  about  70,  the  present  text  was  fixed  between 
the  times  of  John  the  Presbyter  and  Papias.2  Still 
other  critics  of  the  highest  repute  place  all  three 
Gospels  unhesitatingly  in  the  second  century. 
Pfleiderer  puts  Matthew  at  130  to  i4o.8  Keim  puts 
Mark  at  about  ioo/*  For  Luke,  Jiilicher  gives  us 
the  generous  range  from  80  to  105  or  i2o.5  Kriiger 
says,  "All  three  Gospels  were  written  after  the 
destruction  of  Jerusalem,  and  their  text  can  hardly 
have  received  its  present  shape  before  the  second 
half  of  the  second  century."  6  There  is  little  doubt, 
I  think,  that  modern  critics  in  general  would  allow 
that  the  three  earlier  Gospels  have  come  to  their 
actual  form  through  successive  stages  of  growth, 
and  that  any  early  dates  assigned  belong  properly 
to  the  primitive  germ.  The  amount  of  change  to 
which  that  germ  has  been  subjected  must  be  a 

1  Hist.,  vi.  498.  a  Chron.,  654,  700  n. 

8  Urchrist.,  542. 

*  Jesus  of  Nazara,  i.  116;  Urchrist.,  221,  etc. 

6  Einleit.,  202,  263. 

6  Hist,  of  Christ.  Literature,  49. 


276  APPENDIX 

matter  of  pure  conjecture.  For  myself,  I  am  quite 
prepared  to  accept  any  of  the  above  critical  con- 
clusions, provided  they  accord  with  the  evidences 
here  adduced  of  the  use  of  the  Gospels  by  the 
Church  Fathers.  These  evidences  are  historic  facts 
which  are  perfectly  familiar  to  all  students  of  the 
subject,  and  which  none  deny.  They  prove,  if 
nothing  more,  how  long  it  was  before  the  Gospels 
bore  anything  like  canonical  or  official  authority; 
how  long,  that  is,  before  they  were  secured  against 
additions,  modifications,  or  corruptions. 

As  to  the  authors  of  these  Gospels,  it  should  be 
borne  in  mind  that  neither  Matthew,  Mark,  nor 
Luke  was  a  personage  important  enough  to  have 
had  a  Scripture  writing  assigned  to  him  if  he  had 
had  nothing  to  do  with  its  origin.  Of  Luke  this  is 
especially  true.  He  has  absolutely  no  significance 
to  the  world  except  as  writer  of  the  third  Gospel. 
He  was  simply  one  of  the  chance  companions  of  the 
Apostles,1  and  if  the  real  author  had  been  casting 
about  for  a  name,  he  might  quite  as  well  have  called 
it  the  Gospel  of  Demas  or  Tychicus.  The  natural 
inference  is,  therefore,  that  there  was  substantial 
reason  for  calling  it  Luke's ;  in  other  words,  that 
the  original  collection  of  Christ's  words  or  acts, 
from  which  the  Gospel  has  grown,  did  actually 
come,  in  some  form,  from  the  hands  of  Luke.  It 
is  pleasant  to  think  that  this  was  true  of  each  of 
the  Gospels,  however  little  either  may  have  retained 
of  its  original  character.  It  should  be  added, 
1  Col.  iv.  14;  2  Tim.  iv.  u. 


APPENDIX  277 

too,  that  the  many  passages  which  are  common  to 
Matthew,  Mark,  and  Luke  imply  of  themselves  a 
long  process  of  growth,  before  fitting  themselves 
into  such  very  dissimilar  conjunctions.  Indeed,  it 
requires  only  a  moment's  thought  to  conclude  that 
the  sayings  of  Jesus  himself  were  much  more  likely 
to  have  impressed  themselves  upon  the  memory, 
and  to  have  been  sacredly  preserved,  than  any 
other  discourses  of  the  time;  and,  therefore,  we 
risk  little  in  assuming  that  our  records  have  really 
come,  in  this  sense,  from  the  hands  of  his  immedi- 
ate followers. 

But  for  the  unauthorized  and  exaggerated  claims 
that  have  been  made  for  our  Gospels,  the  idea  here 
given  of  a  gradual  growth  out  of  original  oral  and 
written  traditions  would  seem  the  most  natural  and 
satisfactory  explanation  of  their  origin. 

For  authorities  on  the  above  points,  see  Holtz- 
mann,  "  Einleitung,"  372,  etc. ;  Weizsacker,  "Apos- 
tolic Age,"  ii.  32-71;  Pfleiderer,  "  Urchristen- 
thum,"  359-543  ;  Jiilicher,  "  Einleitung,"  207-238  ; 
Reuss, "  History  of  the  New  Testament,"  i.  175-212 ; 
Hilgenfeld,  "  Einleitung,"  452,  497,  547  ;  "  Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica"  (9th  ed.),  art.  "Gospels,"  by 
E.  A.  A. ;  Westcott's  "  Canon  of  the  New  Testament." 

Note  X,  p.  128.  The  Revelation.  The  Book  of 
Revelation  has  many  different  titles  in  different 
versions,  the  oldest  being  The  Revelation  of  John, 
or  simply  Revelation.  Others  are  Revelation  of 
John  the  Theologian,  Revelation  of  John  the  Di- 


278  APPENDIX 

vine,  Revelation  of  St.  John  the  Apostle.  It  is  to 
be  noted,  however,  that  the  book  of  itself  makes  no 
claim  of  the  kind,  but  simply  gives  the  name  John, 
with  nothing  further  to  define  it.1  Moreover,  the 
references  to  the  Apostles  throughout  are  in  the 
third  person,  and  not  at  all  as  though  the  writer 
were  or  pretended  to  be  one  of  them  ; 2  while  it  is 
difficult,  if  not  impossible,  to  conceive  of  such  a 
passage  as  xxi.  14  as  being  written  by  one  of  the 
very  Apostles  to  whom  such  supreme  honor  is 
ascribed. 

The  first  writer,  so  far  as  we  know,  to  mention 
the  book  is  Justin  Martyr  (about  150),  who  con- 
siders John  the  Apostle  to  be  the  author.8  At  the 
end  of  the  century,  it  seems  to  be  generally  ac- 
cepted as  his  work.4  By  the  middle  of  the  third 
century,  it  has  already  begun  to  be  questioned,  and 
a  learned  bishop  of  Alexandria  (Dionysius)  sub- 
jects the  matter  to  very  close  and  critical  inspec- 
tion. He  says:  "That  it  is  a  John  who  writes 
these  things,  we  must  of  course  believe,  as  he 
says  so  himself;  but  what  John  is  not  so  clear. 
For  he  has  not  called  himself,  as  so  often  in  the 
Gospel,  the  disciple  beloved  of  the  Lord,  nor  the  one 
leaning  on  his  breast.  .  .  .  That  he  saw  a  vision  and 
was  endowed  with  wisdom  and  prophetic  power,  I 

1  Rev.  i.  i ,  4,  9 ;  xxii.  8.  2  xviii.  20. 

8  Trypho,  81. 

4  Iren.,  Har.,  iv.  20,  1 1 ;  v.  26,  i ;  v.  30,  i  ;  Clem,  Alex., 
Strom.,  vi.  13 ;  Tertull.  adv.  Marc.  iii.  14 ;  iv.  5  ;  Canon  Mura- 
tori,  3 ;  Origen,  as  given  in  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  vi.  25,  9. 


APPENDIX  279 

do  not  gainsay ;  but  I  perceive  that  his  dialect  and 
language  are  not  of  the  purest  Greek,  but  that  he 
uses  barbarous  idioms,  and  at  times  solecisms." 
Dionysius  thinks  it  probably  a  forgery  by  the  here- 
tic Cerinthus.1  Eusebius  himself,  writing  in  the  next 
century  (about  325),  intimates  that  it  was  perhaps 
by  the  Presbyter  John,  of  whom  Papias  has  so 
much  to  say,2  —  a  conjecture  much  in  favor  among 
the  latest  critics.8  It  is  plain,  therefore,  even  re- 
garding the  work  as  entirely  from  one  hand,  how 
little  ground  there  has  ever  been  to  ascribe  it  to 
the  Apostle  John. 

Modern  criticism,  however,  as  has  been  intimated 
in  the  text,  tends  more  and  more  to  regard  the 
work  as  a  composite  one.  The  fragmentary  char- 
acter of  the  first  three  chapters  was  long  ago  pointed 
out,4  and  later  commentators  have  carried  this 
theory  much  farther :  one  thinking  it  a  gradual 
growth  from  an  apostolic  original ;  another  a  sim- 
ple collection  of  several  apocalypses;  another  a 
Jewish  apocalypse,  adapted  later  to  Christian  needs ; 
another  still  detecting  in  it  a  Jewish  original  of  the 
time  of  Pompey  (B.  c.  63),  added  to  in  the  reign  of 
Caligula  (A.  D.  40),  turned  into  a  Christian  revela- 
tion twenty  years  later,  and  put  into  its  present 
form  about  A.  D.  ioo.5  The  question  of  authorship 

1  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  vii.  25,  12,  26;  iii.  28,  3,  4. 

2  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  39,  6. 

8  Harnack,  Chron.,  i.  675-680. 

4  Schwegler,  Nachapos.  Zeitalter,  ii.  256. 

5  Comp.  Weizsacker,  Apos.Age,  ii.  173-180;  Vischer,  Die 
Offenbarung Johannis,  etc.;  Holtzmann,  Einleit.,  412. 


28o  APPENDIX 

virtually  disappears  under  these  conjectures,  or 
becomes  quite  subordinate  to  that  of  the  date  of 
the  final  revision. 

On  the  question  of  date  there  is  a  more  general 
agreement  among  critics  than  in  the  case  of  any 
other  New  Testament  book  except  certain  Epistles 
of  Paul.  The  decisive  passage  is  found  in  the 
mysterious  utterance  about  the  beast,1  which,  after 
kindling  the  imagination  of  visionaries  for  centu- 
ries, is  at  last  commonly  accepted  as  a  reflection 
of  the  prophecy  of  Daniel 2  and  referring  to  Rome 
and  the  early  emperors.  According  to  these  verses, 
the  sixth  emperor  is  reigning,  while  a  seventh  is 
about  to  appear,  and  one  of  the  seven  to  reappear 
as  the  eighth.  As  on  the  one  hand  the  first  em- 
peror in  this  reckoning  may  be  either  Augustus  or 
Julius  Caesar,  and  on  the  other  hand  Galba,  Otho, 
and  Vitellius  may  be  regarded  as  contemporaneous 
sovereigns  or  passed  over  entirely,  the  range  is  con- 
siderable here ;  and  the  result  varies  between  the 
reign  of  Domitian,8  of  Galba,4  and  of  Vespasian.6 

Even  these  conflicting  results,  however,  offer  the 
limits  68-96 ;  a  far  more  definite  conclusion  than 
we  can  count  upon,  or  are  accustomed  to,  in  New 
Testament  criticism.  We  are  at  liberty,  therefore, 
to  regard  the  Revelation  either  as  a  Christian  work, 

1  Rev.  xvii.  10,  n.  2  vii. 

8  Weizsacker,  Holtzmann,  Harnack.     Comp.  Iren.,  Hcer,, 

v.  3°>  3- 

*  Baur,  Renan,  Hausrath. 

5  Bleek;  Mommsen,  Prov.  of  Roman  Empire,  ii.  214  n. 


APPENDIX  281 

written  not  later  than  the  beginning  of  Vespasian's 
reign,1  while  Christianity  still  feels  itself  a  Jewish 
sect ;  or  as  a  composite  production,  half  Christian 
half  Jewish,  receiving  its  latest  touches  towards 
A.  D.  100.  In  any  case,  it  heralds  the  speedy  com- 
ing of  the  Lord,  and  the  final  establishment  of  the 
New  Jerusalem. 

For  a  historical  sketch  of  the  apocalyptic  litera- 
ture, Jewish  and  Christian,  see  Liicke,  "  Offenba- 
rung  des  Johannes,"  i.  40-342.  For  the  later  criti- 
cism, see  Weizsacker,  "  Apos.  Age,"  ii.  173-205  ; 
Vischer,  "  Die  Offen.  Joh.  eine  Jiidische  Apoca- 
lypse;" Renan,  "Hist,"  iv.  351-480;  Hausrath, 
"  Time  of  Apos.,"  iv.  256-282  ;  Meyer's  "  Exeget. 
Handbuch"  (Diisterdieck)  ;  Pfleiderer,  "  Urchris- 
tenthum,"  3 18-356;  Holtzmann,  "Einleitung,"4o8- 
424. 

Note  Y,  p.  131.  In  the  New  Testament  itself, 
the  messianic  expectation  appears  under  different 
forms  on  different  pages,  showing  that  the  doctrine 
had  assumed  at  that  time  no  definite  shape.  In  the 
Gospel  of  Matthew,  the  coming  of  the  Son  of  man 
and  the  final  judgment  are  to  occur  together,  be- 
fore that  generation  had  passed  away.2  According 
to  Paul,  Christ  was  to  appear  before  all  then  living 
had  passed  away,  and  would  reign  "  till  he  hath  put 
all  enemies  under  his  feet."  After  that  the  end  of 
the  world  :  "  Then  cometh  the  end,  when  he  shall 

1  Rev.  xi.  i,  2. 

2  Matt.  xxiv.  3,  6-13,  29-34;  xxv.  31-46. 


282  APPENDIX 

have  delivered  up  the  kingdom  to  God,  even  the 
Father  ;  when  he  shall  have  put  down  all  rule  and 
all  authority  and  power.  .  .  .  That  God  may  be  all 
in  all." *  Finally,  in  Revelation,  this  indefinite 
intervening  period  between  the  Messiah's  coming 
and  the  end  of  his  reign  has  become  defined  as 
one  thousand  years.2 

Note  Z,  p.  141.  We  need  look  no  further  than 
the  Wisdom  of  Solomon  (about  B.  c.  100,  or  some- 
what later)  to  see  that  Greek  speculations  on 
divine  themes  had  reached  the  Jewish  schools  a 
century  before  Paul.  Pfleiderer  points  out  the  dis- 
tinctly Platonic  features  in  Wisdom  of  Solomon, 
(esp.  i.  13,  etc. ;  ii.  23-^.4 ;  iv.  ic-v.  3,  6,  18-21  ; 
viii.  13,  17-19),  and  also  the  parallelisms  between 
the  Wisdom  and  Paul.  (Wis.  ix.  13-17  and  i  Cor. 
ii.  6-16 ;  2  Cor.  v.  i,  etc. ;  Wis.  xiii.,  xiv.,  and  Rom. 
i.  1 8,  etc. ;  i  Cor.  xii.  2  ;  Gal.  iv.  8,  etc. ;  Wis.  xv. 
7,  xii.  10-12,  and  Rom.  ix.)  This  apocryphal  book 
thus  becomes  the  link  between  Platonic  idealism 
and  Christianity.8  Compare,  also,  Hausrath,  "  Time 
of  Apos.,"  iii.  20-30,  where  the  same  relation  is 
pointed  out,  though  the  Book  of  Wisdom  is  placed 
nearer  to  Paul's  own  time.  See,  also,  Toy,  "Juda- 
ism and  Christianity,"  60,  251,  278;  J.  H.Allen's 
"  Early  Christianity,"  ch.  ii. 

1  i  Cor.  xv.  24-28 ;  i  Thess.  iv.  15. 

2  Rev.  xx.  4,  6. 

8  Pfleiderer,  Urchrist,  153-160. 


APPENDIX  283 

Note  A  A,  p.  149.  Ephesians  and  Colossians.  The 
Epistles  to  Ephesians  and  to  Colossians  (to  a  cer- 
tain extent  duplicates  the  one  of  the  other,  and 
therefore  to  be  considered  together)  have  been 
held  since  the  days  of  De  Wette  and  Baur  in  ever- 
increasing  distrust.  No  problem  connected  with 
New  Testament  criticism  is  so  perplexing,  and 
whatever  result  is  reached  must  be  held  with  great 
reserve,  as  the  historic  evidence  at  command  is 
too  slight  to  allow  of  positive  conclusions. 

The  point  most  dwelt  upon  by  recent  critics  is 
that  the  historic  standpoint  revealed  by  such  pas- 
sages as  Eph.  ii.  13-22  is  altogether  later  than  any 
possible  period  of  Paul's  ministry.  "  The  letter," 
says  Holtzmann,  "  solemnizes  the  victory  of  a 
movement  of  which  the  Pauline  system  marks  the 
critical  moments  of  development."  1  "  These  doc- 
trines," says  Weizsacker,  "have  their  points  of 
contact  with  the  Pauline  teaching,  but  they  go 
beyond  it.  Paul  had  only  foreshadowed  thoughts 
like  these  as  the  ultimate  background ;  here  Paul- 
ine universalism  has  become  a  mystical  theory. 
He  had  not  applied  the  idea  of  the  all-pervading 
godhead  to  the  church,  but  had  looked  forward  to 
it  as  belonging  to  the  final  state  hereafter." a 
"  The  actual  fusing  of  two  distinct  messianic 
circles  into  one  body,"  says  Klopper,  "  which  dur- 
ing Paul's  active  ministry  was  only  a  distant  and 
abstract  ideal,  appears  in  the  Epistle  to  Ephe- 
sians as  nearer  by  a  very  noticeable  stage  to  its 

259.  2  Apos.  Age,  ii.  242. 


284  APPENDIX 

realization." 1  If  the  Epistle  to  Ephesians  were  a 
historical  sketch,  these  criticisms  would  be  quite 
conclusive  ;  but  nothing  seems  clearer  than  that 
the  church  as  present  to  the  writer's  mind  is  an 
ideal  conception.  It  is  no  particular  circle  of  war- 
ring or  reconciled  organizations  j  it  is  the  ideal 
consummation  of  all  things  in  the  messianic  future. 
A  church  which  is  the  "body  and  fullness"  of 
Christ  himself,  "filling  all  in  all,"  and  which 
reveals  to  heavenly  powers  the  hidden  mystery  of 
the  ages,2  is  on  its  own  showing  a  purely  mystic 
notion.  If  it  is  too  mystic  for  Paul,  then  2  Cor. 
iii.  1 8,  and  many  other  passages  in  Corinthians  and 
Romans,  are  too  mystic  for  Paul. 

As  to  the  strong  Gnostic  coloring  of  these  two 
Epistles,  pointed  out  by  Baur,8  and  accepted  by 
almost  all  later  critics,  it  must  be  remembered  that 
we  can  determine  the  beginnings  of  Gnosticism 
only  by  first  determining  the  age  of  the  documents 
in  which  those  beginnings  appear.  Indeed,  if  we 
are  to  make  any  positive  advance  in  our  knowledge 
of  Christian  thought,  we  must  decide  once  for  all 
whether  we  will  follow  primarily  historic  or  a  priori 
evidence  ;  in  other  words,  external  evidence  or 
internal.  We  cannot  do  both.  We  cannot  reject 
Ephesians  and  Colossians  as  breathing  the  thought 
of  a  later  age  than  Paul's,  and  at  the  same  time 
determine  from  Romans  and  Corinthians  what 
Paul's  ideas  were.  In  point  of  fact,  the  historic 

1  Epheser-Brief,  98.  a  i.  23 ;  iii.  IO. 

8  Paulus,  ii.  3-49. 


APPENDIX  285 

evidence,  slight  enough  at  best,  is  quite  the  same 
for  the  lesser  as  for  the  greater  Epistles ;  in  other 
words,  the  references  to  the  one  in  early  writers 
are  quite  as  frequent  and  early  as  to  the  other. 
If  we  reject  these  Epistles  on  internal  grounds,  the 
authenticity  of  all  Paul's  Epistles  falls  at  once  into 
doubt.  If,  therefore,  their  mystic  character  is  the 
chief  argument  against  them,  we  are  bound  to  con- 
clude, not  that  they  are  ungenuine,  but  that  Paul 
was  more  of  a  mystic  than  we  commonly  allow. 

The  marked  resemblance  between  the  two  Epis- 
tles (40  out  of  the  155  verses  in  Ephesians  corre- 
sponding closely  with  Colossians,  together  with  the 
entire  general  arrangement),  which  constituted  De 
Wette's  main  indictment  against  the  genuineness 
of  Ephesians,1  seems  to  me  sufficiently  accounted 
for,  somewhat  as  Schleiermacher  suggested  long 
ago,2  if  Paul,  having  just  written  to  one  congrega- 
tion, wished  to  address  another  on  the  same  theme, 
leaving  it  perhaps  to  an  amanuensis  to  transcribe 
his  former  letter.  Even  a  Paul,  under  the  stress  of 
missionary  labor,  might  well  turn  one  writing  to 
account  for  a  double  purpose. 

The  most  serious  trouble  lies,  after  all,  in  the 
passages  ii.  20,  iii.  5,  and  perhaps  iv.  n,  where 
the  "  Apostles  "  are  spoken  of,  not  as  a  body  of 
living  men,  of  whom  the  writer  is  one,  but  rather 
as  "  holy "  personalities,  to  be  coupled  with  the 
Old  Testament  Prophets  as  a  historic  and  sacred 

1  Introd.  to  JV.  Test.,  §§  145-150. 

2  Werke*  viii.  166  n. 


286  APPENDIX 

group.  For  Paul  to  have  written  Eph.  ii.  20  seems 
quite  as  inconceivable  as  for  John  to  have  writ- 
ten Rev.  xxi.  14.  In  any  case,  the  juxtaposition 
of  Apostles  and  Prophets,  common  enough  after 
the  apostolic  age,  seems  to  point  unequivocally  to 
a  later  moment  and  later  congregational  uses. 
Accepting  the  Epistles  as  otherwise  genuine,  we 
are  forced,  therefore,  to  suppose  that  later  copy- 
ists have  tampered  with  the  text  for  their  own  pur- 
poses. The  difficulties,  then,  are  great  on  both 
sides ;  and  the  best  that  can  be  said  is  that  there 
are  fewer  objections  to  considering  the  Epistles  as 
genuine  in  the  main,  than  to  considering  them  fraud- 
ulent. 

Consult,  on  this  subject,  Baur,  "  Paulus,"  ii.  3- 
49  ;  Schwegler,  "  Nachapos.  Zeitalter,"  ii.  325-334; 
De  Wette,  "  Introd.  to  N.  Test.,"  §§  142-147 ;  Holtz- 
mann,  " Einleitung,"  254-270;  Klopper,  "Brief  an 
d.  Epheser;"  Hilgenfeld,  "  Einleitung,"  332-348, 
669-680  ;  Jiilicher,  "  Einleitung,"  89-97 ;  Lightfoot, 
"Coloss.  and  Philemon;"  McGiffert,  "Hist,  of 
Apos.  Age,"  365-385- 

Note  BB,  p.  1 60.  In  Note  T  will  be  found 
an  estimate  of  Marcion's  Gospel.  The  chief 
authorities  for  his  theological  doctrines  are :  Ter- 
tullian  adv.  Marcion,  i.-v. ;  "  Praes.,"  30 ;  Justin, 
"  Apol.,"  i.  26,  58 ;  Irenaeus,  "  Haer.,"  i.  27  ;  Hip- 
polytus,  vii.  29-31  ;  Epiphanius,  "  Haer.,"  42.  See, 
also,  Baur,  "  Christ.  Gnosis,"  240  ;  Neander,  "Hist. 
of  Christ.  Church,"  458-473;  Hase,  "Hist,  of 


APPENDIX  287 

Christ.  Church,"  81  ;  Harnack,  "  Hist  of  Dogma," 
1.266-285;  "New  World"  for  March,  1898,  pp. 
84,  85. 

Note  CC,  p.  1 66.  Basilides.  The  accounts  of 
Basilides  reach  us  through  two  or  three  distinct 
sources,  differing  greatly  according  as  each  inter- 
preter is  more  or  less  appreciative  of  Basilides's 
idealism,  or  perhaps  as  the  latest  historian  mixes 
the  ideas  of  the  disciples  with  those  of  the  master. 
The  more  transcendental  and  more  detailed  version 
comes  from  Hippolytus,  who  wrote  about  A.  D.  222. 
See  Irenasus,  i.  24  ;  ii.  16,  2  ;  ii.  35,  i  ;  Clem.  Alex., 
"  Stromata,"  ii.  3  ;  ii.  6-8  j  Hippolytus,  vii.  14-27  ; 
Epiphanius,  "  Haer.,"  xxiv. 

Note  DD,  p.  176.  Valentinus.  The  Valentinian 
writings  are  given  most  fully  by  Irenaeus,  who 
records  the  doctrines  of  the  Valentinians  in  gen- 
eral, making  Ptolomaeus  their  chief  spokesman.1 
Hippolytus  gives  virtually  the  same  account,  tra- 
cing the  doctrines  back  to  Pythagoras  and  Plato.2 
Clem.  Alexandrinus  cites  occasional  passages  from 
both  Valentine  and  Basilides,  commonly  with  sym- 
pathetic recognition  of  their  spiritual  meaning. 
Tertullian  treats  the  whole  subject  as  a  broad  joke.8 
Comp.  Epiph.,  "  Hser.,"xxxi. ;  Euseb.,  "Hist.  Ecc.," 
iv.  22,  5. 

1  Har.,  i.  1-8;  i.  Ii,  i. 

2  Refut.,  vi.  21-37. 

3  Adv.  Valentinianos ;  also,  Pras.,  7,  30,  33 ;  Car.,  2. 


288  APPENDIX 

Note  EE,  p.  183.  Philo.  Comp.  Ritter,  "  Hist, 
of  Ancient  Philosophy,"  iv.  ch.  vi. ;  Ewald,  "  Hist,  of 
Israel,"  vii.  194-235  ;  Hausrath,  "  Time  of  Apos.," 
i.  161-189;  Harnack,  "Hist,  of  Dogma,"  i.  109- 
116. 

Note  FF,  p.  1 88.  The  name  Gnosticism  is  so 
loosely  used  by  the  earlier  writers  that  it  is  not 
easy  to  determine  exactly  when  it  came  into  vogue 
as  the  designation  of  a  sect  or  sects.  Justin  Martyr 
(150)  attacks  Marcion  with  great  severity,  and  de- 
nounces Marcionites,  Valentinians,  Basilidians,  and 
others,  under  the  names  of  their  leaders,  but  makes 
no  mention  whatever  of  "  Gnostics."  1  Irenaeus 
(175)  applies  the  name  vaguely  to  all  the  heresies 
of  the  time,  yet  uses  the  word  itself  but  rarely,  and 
resents  its  appropriation  by  his  opponents.  His 
book  against  heresies  is  entitled  "  Refutation  of 
the  falsely-called  Gnosis."  2  Tertullian,  who  also 
writes  hiany  treatises  against  Marcionites,  Valentin- 
ians, and  other  heretics,  and  deals  constantly  with 
the  very  themes  at  issue  between  himself  and  them 
(Resurrection  of  the  Flesh ;  The  Soul ;  The  Flesh  of 
Christ),  has  hardly  a  single  occasion  to  use  the  name 
Gnostic.  I  can  find  it  but  three  times,  distinguish- 
ing each  time  between  Gnostic  and  Valentinian.8 

1  Apol.,  i.  26,  58 ;   Trypho,  35. 

2  The  word  appears,  I  think,  only  in  i.  n,  i ;  i.  25,  6 ;  i. 
29,  I ;  ii.  Pref. ;  ii.  13,  8 ;  ii.  31,  i ;  ii.  35,  2;  iii.  12,  12 :  iv.  6, 
4 ;  iv.  35,  i ;  v.  26,  2. 

8  Scorpiace,  I  ;  Adv.  Valentinianos,  39 ;  De  Anima,  1 8. 


APPENDIX  28.9 

Clem.  Alexandrinus  (about  200),  in  the  eight  books 
of  his  "  Stromata,"  uses  the  word  on  every  page, 
but  only  as  the  best  designation  he  can  find  for  the 
perfect  man  and  true  Christian.  He  claims  to  be 
as  Gnostic  as  the  best ; 1  and  deals  with  Basilides 
and  Valentine  as  fair  opponents,  who  are  at  worst 
but  chatterers  and  cavilers,2  and  altogether  too 
ascetic  to  satisfy  his  notion  of  the  requirements 
of  the  Gospels.8  His  opponents  are  "Gnostics, 
falsely  so-called."  4  Origen  (185-254)  treats  here- 
sies in  general  as  natural  attendants  upon  Chris- 
tianity,6 but  shows  a  profound  aversion  to  Mar- 
cionites  and  especially  Ophites ; 6  and  mentions 
Basilides  and  Valentine  with  little  favor.7  All  this 
time,  however,  he  says  nothing  of  Gnostics,  so  far 
as  I  see,  except  in  a  single  case  where  he  speaks  of 
"  those  who  give  themselves  out  as  Gnostics ; "  /.  <?., 
as  if  they  knew  more  than  others.8  Hippolytus, 
in  his  ten  books  of  "  Refutation  of  all  Heresies," 
uses  the  name  Gnostic  very  rarely,9  applying  it  dis- 
tinctly to  the  Naaseni.  Epiphanius  (toward  400) 
takes  quite  a  different  view,  declaring  that  all  after 
one  Nicolaus,  including  Valentinians,  called  them- 
selves Gnostics.10  Plotinus  (205-270),  writing  as  a 

Strom.,  ii.  ii. 

i.  10;  ii.  8;  ii.  16;  iii.  4 ;  iv.  9. 

iii.  i,  4,  etc.;  vii.  17.  *  iii.  4. 

Cels.,  iii.  12. 

Prin.,  ii.  5, 1-4 ;  vii.  i ;  Cels.,  vi.  24 ;  vi.  28  ;  vi.  30 ;  vi.  53. 

Prin.,  ii.  9,  5;  ii.  7,  i ;  Cels.,  vi.  35  ;  v.  61. 
8  Cels.,v.  61.  9  v.  2;  v.  6;  v.  23. 

10  Hcsr.,  xxvi. ;  xxxi.  i. 


290  APPENDIX 

philosopher  against  the  false  Platonists  of  his  day, 
uses  no  names,  and  leaves  it  uncertain  whether  he 
has  Christians  or  Gnostics  in  mind.  His  disciple 
Porphyry,  however,  in  editing  the  treatise,  entitles 
it  "  Against  the  Gnostics,"  but  claims  at  the  same 
time  that  the  Gnostics  were  Christians.1  Eusebius 
(about  320),  following  Irenaeus,  fathers  Gnosticism 
upon  Carpocrates  only,  and  mentions  Basilides  as 
the  leader  of  a  distinct  heresy.2  Philaster  (about 
350)  enumerates  156  heresies,  using  the  name 
Gnostic  but  four  times,  distinguishing  them  from 
Valentinians,  and  coupling  them  each  time  with 
Manichaeans.8  Augustine  (354-430)  gives  88  here- 
sies j  among  them  :  i.  Simonians  ;  iv.  Basilides ; 
vi.  Gnostics ;  xi.  Valentine ;  xvii.  Ophites  ;  xxii. 
Marcionites.4  If  nothing  else  is  clear  from  the 
above,  it  is  plain  that  no  two  of  these  early  authori- 
ties use  the  term  Gnostic  in  the  same  sense,  and 
that  it  was  long  fought  for  by  both  sides,  before 
being  surrendered  to  the  heretics. 

Compare  Anz,5  who  traces  all  the  Gnostic  schools 
back  to  an  early  Babylonian  gnomic  system.  Re- 
nan  holds  that  the  doctrines  common  to  Basilides, 
Valentine,  and  Saturninus,  no  less  than  to  Philo  and 
Paul,  point  to  some  common  source  behind  them 

1  Vit.  Plotin.,  16;  Select  Works  of  Plotinus,  Bohn,  44  n., 

257. 

2  Hist.  Ecc.,  iv.  7, 8  and  9. 

»  Phil,  de  Htzr.,  ch.  84,  88,  100,  129. 

4  Opera,  viii. 

5  Zur  Frage  nach  d.  Ursprung  d.  Gnosticismus. 


APPENDIX  291 

all.1  Matter,  in  his  "  Histoire  Critique,"  among 
43  Gnostic  sects,  gives  one  (No.  43)  specifically 
called  Gnostics. 

Note  GG,  p.  195.  Pistis  Sophia.  See  "tiber 
das  gnostische  Buch  Pistis-Sophia."  Harnack, 
"Texte  und  Untersuchungen,"  etc.,  1890.  Also, 
Westcott's  "  Canon  of  New  Testament,"  p.  404. 

This  writing  is  part  of  a  Coptic  document  found 
about  1851,  and  is  considered  by  Harnack  to  be- 
long to  the  latter  part  of  the  third  century.  As  it 
is  almost  the  only  Gnostic  treatise  which  has  sur- 
vived, it  is  interesting  to  observe  that  it  is  based 
upon  the  Old  Testament  and  New  Testament  Scrip- 
tures. It  represents  Jesus  conversing  with  his  dis- 
ciples on  the  Mount  of  Olives  eleven  years  after 
his  ascension,  and  revealing  to  them  the  mysteries 
which  during  his  ministry  he  had  hidden  under  his 
parables.  He  calls  himself  "  that  great  Mystery,"  2 
and  treats  both  the  Scriptures  as  "  veiled  truth  " 
now  first  revealed.  The  writer,  without  mentioning 
the  Evangelists,  evidently  has  some  version  of  the 
four  Gospels,  with  some  apocryphal  sources,  before 
him,  and  cites  also  freely  from  the  Psalms,  adding 
five  unknown  "  Psalms  of  Solomon,"  together  with 
Gnostic  hymns.  Christ  appears  as  the  highest  ^on, 
and  describes  his  descending  to  earth  and  gazing 
upon  Mary  before  his  human  birth.  Mary  Mag- 
dalen is  a  prominent  figure  throughout ;  and  the 
presence  of  the  women  on  the  scene  causes  no 

1  Hist.,  vi.  148.  2  Pistis  Sophia,  230,  231. 


292  APPENDIX 

little  altercation  among  the  disciples.  Peter  espe- 
cially complains  to  the  Master  of  their  loquacity.1 
An  extraordinary  scene  occurs  where  Christ  stands 
with  his  disciples  on  the  seashore,  uttering  a  series 
of  unintelligible  sounds,  the  jEons  and  Powers  all 
listening.  The  writer  takes  this  quite  seriously, 
and  explains  the  meaning  of  the  mouthings ; 
though,  so  far  as  we  can  judge,  it  is  simply  a  con- 
vulsive sequence  of  alliterative  and  explosive  syl- 
lables (taw,  cuoi,  Oepvuif/,  etc.),  perhaps  a  genuine 
case  of  the  gift  of  tongues,  as  described  by  Paul.2 

Note  HH,  p.  198.  Gnosticism.  If  any  of  my 
readers  feel  that  I  have  dealt  too  lightly  with  the 
solemn  problem  of  Gnosticism,  or  for  any  reason 
care  to  follow  the  subject  further,  they  will  find  all 
needed  help  in  the  following  works. 

Baur's  "  Christliche  Gnosis  "  is  still  one  of  the 
most  exhaustive  and  important  treatises  on  the 
subject,  though  importing  into  it  a  little  too  much 
of  the  idealism  of  his  own  century.  He  finds  the 
first  elements  of  Gnosticism  in  the  contact  of  Jew- 
ish and  pagan  thought ;  especially  in  Philo,  though 
also  in  the  Old  Testament  Apocrypha,  the  Thera- 
peutae,  and  Essenes.  He  classifies  the  Gnostic 
sects  according  to  their  relation  to  paganism,  Juda- 
ism, and  Christianity. 

Neander 8  takes  up  the  several  leading  schools 

1  Pistis  Sophia,  161,  382. 

2  i  Cor.  xiv.  9,  n,  14,  19,  23. 

8  Hist,  of  Christian  Church,  i.  366-478. 


APPENDIX  293 

in  a  comprehensive  and  thoroughly  appreciative 
spirit,  if  only  the  work  were  more  readable,  either 
in  the  original  or  the  translation. 

Matter1  writes  with  full  research  and  in  great 
detail.  He  divides  the  Gnostic  sects  in  large 
measure  geographically,  viz. :  i.  Cerinth  and  Si- 
mon ;  ii.  Syrian  schools  ;  iii.  Egypt,  chief  schools  ; 
iv.  Egypt,  lesser  schools ;  v.  Marcion ;  vi.  Clemen- 
tines. 

Anz,  "  Zur  Frage  nach  d.  Ursprung  d.  Gnosti- 
cismus,"  i897,a  *s  an  interesting  monograph,  tracing 
Gnosticism  back  to  an  early  Babylonian  cult. 

See,  also,  Hilgenfeld,  "  Einleitung  ins  Neue  Tes- 
tament," 45,  etc. ;  Herzog,  "  Encyklopadie  "  (arti- 
cle by  Jacobi) ;  Harnack,  "  History  of  Dogma," 
i.  222-366 ;  Renan,  "  Hist.,"  vi.  140-185,  350- 
363  ;  Mansel,  "  Gnostic  Heresies,"  London,  1875. 

See,  also,  Toy,  "Judaism  and  Christianity,"  257, 
431,  etc. ;  J.  H.  Allen,  "  Early  Christianity,"  ch.  iii. 

Note  II,  p.  205.  For  the  parallelisms  between 
the  Fourth  Gospel  and  the  others,  see  De  Wette, 
"Introduction  to  New  Testament,"  §§  103-107. 
De  Wette  gives  also  an  exact  arrangement  of  the 
Gospel  as  compared  with  Matthew,  which  he  con- 
sidered as  probably  its  basis.  Other  commentators 
think  it  draws  chiefly  from  Luke,  though  there  is 
little  agreement  and  much  guesswork  upon  this 
point.  From  a  rough  comparison,  such  as  any  one 

1  Histoire  Critique  du  Gnosticisme.     1843. 

2  Gebh.  und  Harnack,  Texts,  etc. 


294  APPENDIX 

can  make,  I  should  say  that  the  passages  of  our 
Gospel  which  run  at  all  parallel  with  the  others 
constitute  about  100  out  of  nearly  900  verses,1  all 
of  them  quite  vague  and  inexact,  if  considered  as 
quotations.  Exact  quotations,  or  direct  acknow- 
ledgment of  the  source  borrowed  from,  we  should 
not  of  course  expect  from  this  writer  more  than 
from  others  of  that  period ;  but  it  would  not  be 
too  much  to  look  for  some  slight  consciousness  of 
the  existence  of  other  authorities,  if  they  had  any 
recognized  position.  See  Keim,  "  Jesus  of  Nazara," 
i.  160-166 ;  Holtzmann,  "  Einleitung,"  440 ;  Jiili- 
cher,  "  Einleitung,"  247  ;  Pfleiderer,  "  Urchristen- 
thum,"  695.  Pfleiderer  holds  that  the  author  shows 
special  dependence  upon  Luke ;  but  that,  beside 
Mark  and  Luke,  he  drew  also  from  some  unknown 
third  source ;  not  Matthew,  but  probably  the  Gospel 
to  Hebrews. 

Note  JJ,  p.  208.  The  Logos.  In  comparing  the 
Logos  of  the  Fourth  Gospel  with  that  of  Philo, 
which  it  so  closely  resembles,2  it  is  not  necessary 
to  assume  that  the  one  is  drawn  directly  from  the 
other.  It  may  be  or  may  not  be.  Philo  is  of 
importance  to  us,  not  so  much  for  himself  as  for 
the  contact  of  Greek  and  Jewish  thought  which  he 
represents,  and  for  the  general  religious  movement 
of  which  he  happens  to  be  the  only  writer  whose 
works  have  survived.  What  Philo  was  thinking 
just  then  no  doubt  others  were  thinking  also,  and 
i  Exactly  118  out  of  879.  2  P.  181. 


APPENDIX  295 

the  use  which  he  made  of  Old  Testament  material 
was  open  to  other  enlightened  Jews  as  well.  But 
whether  drawn  from  Philo  or  not,  our  Gospel  un- 
questionably reflects  the  same  ideals  as  held  by 
another  mind  and  applied  to  another  order  of 
events.  What  Philo  conceived  metaphysically,  our 
author  presents  to  us  incarnated  in  the  living  Jesus. 
The  ideal  has  become  real. 

See  Keim,  "  Jesus  of  Nazara,"  i.  153,  276,  etc. ; 
Harnack,  "  History  of  Dogma,"  i.  109-114;  Holtz- 
mann,  "Die  Gnosis  und  Johan.  Evang.,"  117;  O. 
Holtzmann,  "  Johannes  Evangelium,"  80-86 ;  Hil- 
genfeld,  "  Evang.  Justin's  und  Marcion's,"  294. 

Note  KK,  p.  209.  Fourth  Gospel  and  Gnosti- 
cism. The  Gnostic  affinities  of  this  Gospel,  partly 
cloaked  by  our  English  version,  are  perfectly  evi- 
dent and  have  been  often  dwelt  upon.  One  com- 
mentator finds  the  entire  Valentinian  Ogdoad  in 
the  Prologue ;  its  Pleroma,  its  Monogenes,  its 
Arche,  Logos,  Zoe,  Charis,  and  Aletheia  corre- 
sponding closely  if  not  exactly  with  the  Valentinian 
^Eons.  The  "  bosom  of  the  Father  "  and  light  as 
the  essence  of  Deity  are  also  Valentinian.1  Ac- 
cording to  Irenaeus,  the  Valentinians  themselves 
claimed  the  first  chapter  of  John  as  authority  for 
their  system.2  The  recognized  earmarks  of  Gnos- 
ticism, Dualism,  Docetism,  with  the  ^Eons  and  Demi- 
urge, in  reality  if  not  in  name,  are  certainly  found 

1  Hilgenfeld,  Evang.  und  Brief e  Johan.,  19-46. 

2  ff<zr.,  i.  8,  5.    Comp.  iii.  n,  i. 


296  APPENDIX 

in  our  Gospel,  together  with  the  allegory,  the 
occultism,  and  the  radical  distinction  between 
spiritual  and  unspiritual  which  characterize  all 
Gnostic  systems.  At  the  same  time,  it  is  notice- 
ably free  from  all  the  eccentricities  and  extrava- 
gancies which  we  associate  with  the  name,  and  is 
the  evident  product  of  a  mind  which  can  use  its 
Gnostic  training  for  the  highest  religious  ends  and 
definitely  Christian  purposes. 

See  Holtzmann,  "  Die  Gnosis,"  etc. ;  "  Einleit," 
457;  Weizacker,  "Apos.  Age,"  ii.  239. 

Note  LL,  p.  214.  The  verses,  John  iii.  3,  4,  ap- 
pear in  nearly  the  same  form  in  the  writings  of  Jus- 
tin Martyr,1  both  these  writers  apparently  drawing 
from  some  common  ulterior  source.2  Interesting 
parallels,  showing  that  these  ideas  were  familiar  in 
Alexandrine  circles,  have  been  cited  from  Wisdom 
of  Solomon,  ix.  17, 1 8,  and  from  Philo.  "  Is  it  pos- 
sible for  one  who  pursues  sensual  objects  to  inherit 
incorporeal  and  divine  things  ?  .  .  .  He  alone  de- 
serves those  rewards  who  is  inspired  from  above."  8 
"  The  Words  of  God  move  upwards  and  downwards 
through  the  soul  incessantly ;  when  they  soar  up- 
ward dragging  it  aloft,  separating  it  from  all  that 
is  mortal,  and  revealing  to  its  sight  those  things 
alone  worthy  to  be  seen."  4 

1  Apol.,  i.  61. 

2  Comp.  p.  80. 

3  Quis  Rer.  Her.,  13,  38, 

4  Sow.,  i.  23. 


APPENDIX  297 

Note  MM,  p.  225.  The  episode  of  the  raising 
of  Lazarus  is  the  most  signal  instance  of  the  inde- 
pendent sources  from  which  our  Gospel  was  drawn 
(unless,  indeed,  the  narrative  is  accepted  as  purely 
imaginary).  Not  only  is  it  peculiar  to  this  Gospel, 
it  is  impossible  to  find  a  place  for  it  in  the  others. 
Had  a  man  been  raised  from  the  dead  "fifteen 
furlongs  from  Jerusalem  "  immediately  before  the 
Passover,  leading  the  authorities  to  "  take  counsel 
together  for  to  put  him  to  death,"  l  some  allusion 
to  the  incident,  or  faint  trace  of  it,  at  least,  would 
necessarily  be  found  in  the  closing  chapters  of 
Matthew,  Mark,  or  Luke.  This  has  very  naturally 
led  many  commentators  to  reject  the  incident  wholly 
as  history,  and  give  it  an  allegorical  interpretation 
based  upon  the  Lazarus  story  in  Luke.3  Accord- 
ing to  their  view,  the  return  of  Lazarus  from  the 
grave,  which  is  prayed  for  in  Luke,  comes  actually 
to  pass  in  our  Gospel.  The  mention  of  Caiaphas 
as  high  priest  for  that  year8  is  also  noted  as  an 
unhistorical  feature,  pointing  to  an  Ephesian  origin 
for  the  tradition.  The  Jewish  high  priesthood  never 
changed  yearly,  as  is  here  assumed ;  but  that  cus- 
tom did  prevail  for  the  Roman  high  priests  in  Asia 
Minor.4  Notwithstanding  these  historical  difficul- 
ties, however,  the  ingenuousness  of  the  narrative 

1  John  xi.  18,  53,  56. 

2  Luke  vi.  20-31 ;  also,  x.  38-42. 
8  John  xi.  49. 

*  Pfleiderer,  Urchrist.,  721,  722;  also,  Baur,  Evang.,  192, 
etc. ;  Mommsen,  Provinces  of  Roman  Empire,  i.  374. 


298  APPENDIX 

and  its  realistic  touches  seem  to  me  to  stamp  it 
as  quite  as  genuine  as  any  of  the  New  Testament 
miracles.  It  must  take  its  place  with  the  rest, 
as  the  mythical  reflection  of  some  actual  incident 
preserved  in  Alexandrian  or  Ephesian  tradition 
and  made  the  vehicle  for  the  author's  central 
theme. 

Note  NN,  p.  233.  John  xiv.  16,  26.  The  Holy 
Ghost  as  member  of  the  Christian  Trinity,  as  in- 
deed the  philosophical  formula  of  the  Trinity  itself, 
belongs  to  a  still  later  date  than  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel; but  these  passages  show  that  the  separate 
personifications  which  are  by  and  by  to  produce 
that  formula  are  already  becoming  familiar.  In 
this  distinction  between  the  Son  and  the  Holy 
Spirit,  which  he  sends  after  his  departure  under 
the  name  of  Paraclete,  lies  perhaps  the  first  step 
towards  the  final  distinction  of  the  second  and 
third  persons  of  the  Trinity.  Tertullian  seems  to 
claim  that  he  learned  this  doctrine  from  his  Mon- 
tanistic  faith,1  in  which  case  it  would  follow  that 
this  important  step  in  Christian  theology  was  first 
taken  by  Montanism. 

Schwegler,  "  Nachapos.  Zeitalter,"  ii.  338,  369  ; 
Pfleiderer,  "Urchristenthum,"  728,  766;  O.  Holtz- 
mann,  "  Johannes  Evangelium,"  79. 

Note  OO,  p.  236.    Docetism.     The  writer  of  the 
Fourth  Gospel  does  not  tell  us  in  what  sense  he 
i  Prax.,  2. 


APPENDIX  299 

regards  Jesus  as  a  man.  The  phrase  "  the  Word 
became  flesh  "  does  not  mean  necessarily  "  became 
man."  It  may  mean  simply  that  the  Logos  as- 
sumed temporarily  a  bodily  form  for  the  purposes 
of  his  earthly  mission,  to  surrender  it  as  soon  as 
that  mission  was  ended.  There  is  nothing  in  the 
entire  Gospel  to  suggest  an  actual  blending  of  the 
divine  and  human  natures.  We  might  even  sup- 
pose that  this  question  had  not  yet  suggested  itself, 
and  that  the  writer  was  quite  unaware  of  any  diffi- 
culties in  the  matter.  No  human  birth  is  men- 
tioned or  assumed ;  and  although  the  Logos  takes 
human  form,  he  continues  to  act  as  a  celestial 
being  throughout.  He  not  only  performs  miracles 
and  raises  the  dead  to  life,  he  is  represented  as 
knowing  all  things,  as  seeing  into  the  hearts  of  men, 
and  as  foreseeing  from  the  beginning  all  that  was 
to  occur.1  In  a  word,  the  human  is  so  completely 
subordinated  to  the  divine  that  it  can  hardly  be 
said  to  exist  except  in  outward  form. 

This  relation  of  the  divine  to  the  human  was 
soon  to  become  a  burning  question  in  the  churches ; 
and  the  commonest  solution  of  the  enigma  was  to 
consider  the  human  body  of  Jesus  a  mere  sem- 
blance of  flesh  and  blood,  like  the  angel-forms  in 
the  Old  Testament.2  This  idea  was  strengthened 
by  the  prevailing  philosophical  notion  of  the  inher- 
ent evil  or  sinfulness  of  the  flesh ;  making  it  impos- 
sible to  suppose  a  divine  being  taking  upon  himself 

1  Johnii.  24,  25;  iii.  n,  14;  vi.  64;  ii.  19,  22. 

2  Gen.  xviii.  I,  2 ;  xix.  1-3. 


300  APPENDIX 

an  actual  body.1  In  due  time  this  was  pronounced 
a  heresy ;  and  as  every  heresy  must  have  a  name, 
this  was  styled  Docetism.  The  Docetae  (Ao/oyrai) 
were  those  who  regarded  Christ's  body  as  apparent, 
not  real.  How  serious  this  struggle  was,  in  other 
words,  how  near  this  doctrine  came  to  being  ac- 
cepted as  the  true  explanation  of  this  great  mystery, 
appears  from  the  extraordinary  pains  taken  by  all 
writers  of  this  period  to  refute  it ; 2  none  the  less 
because  they  were  so  liable  themselves  to  fall  into 
the  same  error.8  Tertullian  has  this  heresy  con- 
stantly on  his  mind.4  Irenaeus  hardly  less.5  Cle- 
mens Alexandrinus,  while  repudiating  the  name, 
advances  views  of  his  own  hardly  to  be  distin- 
guished from  Docetism.6  Origen  was  scarcely  more 
successful  in  escaping  the  heresy.7 

According  to  some  accounts,  the  Docetae  consti- 
tuted a  distinct  sect.  Clem.  Alexandrinus  traces  it 
to  Julius  Cassianus  as  the  founder,8  while  Irenaeus 
seems  to  think  it  originated  with  Saturninus.9  Hip- 
polytus,  without  naming  any  founder  or  source,  at- 

1  Philo,  De  Mund.  Opif.,  24 ;  Sac.  Abel,  28  ;  FragmentaEx., 
xxiv.  13,  17;  Opera,  vi.  245. 

2  Polycarp,  vii.  i ;  Ignat.  adv.  Smyrn.  2,  3. 

8  Barnabas,  xii.  10,  "manifested  figuratively  in  the  flesh." 

4  Car.  Chris.,  I,  4,  9;  Prax.,  27,  30;  Marc.  v.  14. 

5  iii.  n,  3 ;  iii.  16,  6;  iii.  19,  3 ;  v.  14,  3 ;  v.  I,  2. 

6  Strom.,  iii.  13.     Comp.  vi.  9. 

7  Prin.,  ii.  6,  3 ;  iv.  1, 31 ;  Cels.,  i.  32,  33  ;  ii.  9,  23 ;  iv.  15 ; 
vi.  77. 

8  Strom.,  iii.  13. 

e  i.  24,  2.     Comp.  Hipp.  vii.  28. 


APPENDIX  301 

tributes  to  the  Docetae  a  profoundly  metaphysical 
and  abstruse  system.1  Whether  a  sect  or  not, 
however,  its  chief  interest  for  us  is  simply  as  one 
of  the  most  familiar  phases  under  which  the  Gnos- 
tic thought  of  the  day  appeared. 

It  must  be  confessed  that  to  the  ordinary  reader 
of  the  Fourth  Gospel  or  of  Paul's  Epistles,  Doce- 
tism  offers  the  most  obvious  escape  from  the  impasse 
in  which  these  writings  find  themselves,  by  present- 
ing a  purely  celestial  being  under  the  guise  of  hu- 
manity. Christian  theologians  of  later  days  have 
invented  various  metaphysical  deliverances  from 
the  dilemma;  but  the  early  Christians  were  not 
metaphysicians,  and  can  hardly  be  blamed  for  un- 
derstanding language  in  its  plain  meaning.  One 
who  could  say  that  "  God  sent  his  own  Son  in  the 
likeness  of  sinful  flesh  "  has  no  reason  to  be  sur- 
prised if  his  readers  understood  him  as  meaning 
"  the  semblance  of  sinful  flesh ;  "  that  is,  the  appear- 
ance, not  the  reality.2  The  Docetae  might  fairly 
be  described  as  those  who  took  the  Epistles  of 
Paul  and  the  Fourth  Gospel  at  their  word. 

Baur,  "  Christenthum,"  i.  205-213;  Hilgenfeld, 
"  Evang.  und  Briefe  Johan.,"  222-248  ;  Weizsacker, 
"Apos.  Age,"  i.  143;  ii.  238;  Reville,  "Orig.  de 
1'Episcopat,"  i.  451. 

Note  PP,  p.  237.  Date  and  Authorship  of 
Fourth  Gospel.  The  origin  of  the  Fourth  Gospel 

1  Hipp.  viii.  8,  etc. ;  x.  16.     Comp.  Baur,  Christenthum,  i. 
205-207. 

2  Rom.  viii.  3  ;  also,  Phil.  ii.  7,  8. 


302  APPENDIX 

is  as  obscure  as  that  of  the  other  three.  For  years, 
as  is  well  known,  it  was  regarded  as  the  work  of 
the  Apostle  John;  but  the  moment  the  question 
began  to  be  critically  studied,  this  tradition  was 
found  to  be  merely  a  second  century  conjecture, 
with  little  internal  or  external  evidence  to  support 
it.  That  the  Apostle  John,  as  represented  in  the 
New  Testament,  calling  down  fire  from  heaven 
upon  the  Messiah's  foes  and  asking  for  a  place  of 
authority  in  the  Messiah's  kingdom,1  should  in 
advancing  years  become  a  speculative  theologian, 
versed  in  the  Alexandrine  philosophy,  has  always 
seemed  so  intrinsically  improbable  as  to  require 
strong  historical  proofs  to  support  it,  especially  as 
the  little  that  is  known  of  his  after  career  indicates 
that  he  continued  violently  hostile  to  the  ideas 
represented  by  the  Fourth  Gospel.  One  early 
writer  represents  him  as  wearing  the  diadem  of 
a  high  priest ;  another  as  rushing  out  of  a  bath- 
house without  bathing  because  he  found  the  heretic 
Cerinthus  within.2  Strangely  enough,  this  same 
Cerinthus  was  supposed,  in  certain  quarters,  to 
have  been  the  true  author  of  both  Gospel  and 
Revelation  ;  so  little  reason  was  there  for  John,  if 
really  the  author  of  either,  to  have  considered  him 
a  heretic.3  The  reasons  for  believing  that  if  John 
wrote  the  Revelation  he  could  not  have  written 
the  Fourth  Gospel  also  were  so  clearly  stated  by 

1  Luke  ix.  49-54;  Mark  x.  35-37. 

2  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  31,  3;  Iren.  iii.  3,  4. 

8  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  vii.  25,  2 ;  Epiph.,  Hcer.,  li.  3. 


APPENDIX  303 

Dionysius  1600  years  ago  that  they  need  hardly 
be  urged  afresh.1 

As  it  happens,  the  external  evidence  is  as  little 
favorable  to  the  apostolic  authorship  of  the  book 
as  the  internal.  If  really  written  by  John,  the 
beloved  disciple,  we  should  naturally  look  for  a 
frequent  use  of  it  by  Christian  writers  from  the 
earliest  time,  and  expect  to  find  it  treated  with 
the  special  reverence  or  confidence  due  to  so  high 
a  source.  So  far  is  this  from  being  the  case,  how- 
ever, that  the  earlier  writers  known  to  us  might 
have  written  exactly  as  they  have,  had  this  Gospel 
been  wholly  unknown  to  them,  or  its  authorship  at 
least  unguessed.  Neither  Clemens  Romanus,  Poly- 
carp,  Ignatius,  Barnabas,  the  author  of  the  "  Shep- 
herd of  Hermas,"  or  of  "The  Teaching  of  the 
Twelve  Apostles,"  once  mentions  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel or  its  author,  or  once  makes  a  clear  citation 
from  it.  There  are  vague  resemblances  of  word 
or  phrase,  it  is  true,  but  nothing  that  might  not 
have  been  drawn  from  the  prevailing  thought  or 
phraseology  of  the  time,  and  no  single  quotation 
which  claims  the  Apostle  John  as  its  authority.2 

Turning  to  the  writers  of  the  middle  of  the  cen- 
tury, Papias,  as  will  be  remembered,8  makes  no 
reference  to  our  Gospel,  so  far  as  his  writings  are 
known  to  us,  though  mentioning  Mark  and  Mat- 

1  Euseb.  vii.  25. 

2  For  passages  from  these  writers  resembling  the  Fourth 
Gospel,  see  Holtzmann,  Einleit.,  465,  466. 

«  Pp.  8-17. 


304  APPENDIX 

thew,  and  perhaps  quoting  from  the  First  Epistle 
of  John.1  Marcion  is  equally  silent;  though  the 
Fourth  Gospel,  had  he  known  it  and  known  it  as 
the  work  of  an  Apostle,  would  have  served  his  pur- 
poses far  better,  and  given  higher  sanction  to  his 
doctrines,  than  the  Gospel  of  Luke  which  he  uses.2 
Still  more  significant  is  the  silence  of  Justin  Mar- 
tyr.8 Here  is  a  writer  who  has  in  his  hands  certain 
"  Memoirs  of  the  Apostles,"  which  must  have  in- 
cluded whatever  Gospel  records  were  in  common 
vogue  at  that  time,  and  who  cites  from  these  freely, 
yet  who  never  mentions  the  Fourth  Gospel  nor 
quotes  from  it,  nor  once  appeals  to  the  Apostle 
John  as  his  authority.  One  or  two  passages  sug- 
gest the  Fourth  Gospel  dimly ;  but  they  are  not 
given  as  quotations,  and  may  equally  well  be  taken 
from  other  sources,  or  may  be  original  with  Justin 
himself.4  The  passage  concerning  regeneration, 
already  quoted,6  certainly  bears  a  strong  resem- 
blance to  our  Gospel,6  but  on  careful  examination, 
as  we  have  seen,  the  differences  are  quite  as  strik- 
ing, supposing  that  Justin  had  the  Gospel  passage 
before  him  or  in  his  mind.  Commentators  who 
compare  these  extracts  confess  themselves  in 
doubt  which  writer  is  borrowing  from  the  other, 
or  whether  both  are  not  drawing  from  some  older 
original.  In  any  other  case  we  should  say  at  once 
that  both  writers  probably  have  some  familiar  say- 

i  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  39,  17.  2  Pp.  92-94. 

8  Pp.  70-81.  4  ApoL,  i.  5  ;   Trypho,  88. 

6  P.  80.  6  John  iii.  3-5. 


APPENDIX  305 

ing  of  Jesus  in  mind  which  was  circulating  in  dif- 
ferent forms,  or  to  which  each  gives  the  shape  best 
suited  to  his  special  purposes.  That  a  writer  like 
Justin,  if  able  to  fortify  his  teachings  by  the  first- 
hand authority  of  an  Apostle  of  the  Lord,  should 
hesitate  for  any  reason  to  do  so  seems  the  least 
likely  supposition  of  all.  He  repeatedly  refers,  as 
occasion  demands,  to  the  "  Apostles  of  the  Lord ; " 
why  should  he  forget  in  the  present  case  to  tell  us 
that  he  is  using  the  very  language  of  the  beloved 
disciple?  If  there  is  any  instance  in  literature 
where  an  author's  silence  is  conclusive,  it  is  here. 
If  it  does  not  prove  that  the  Fourth  Gospel  was 
still  unwritten,  it  shows  clearly  that  it  was  current 
at  best  as  a  private  document  in  limited  circles, 
and  was  either  unknown  to  writers  like  Marcion 
and  Justin,  or  thought  not  important  enough  to  be 
quoted. 

The  Gnostic  writers  of  the  century,  especially 
Basilides  and  Valentine,  are  often  cited  as  using 
John's  Gospel  freely ;  but  they  lose  all  weight  as 
witnesses,  as  the  works  of  master  and  disciple  are 
in  each  case  avowedly  mixed  by  the  Fathers  who 
quote  them.1 

1  See  Hipp.,  Philos.,  vii.  22,  27,  where  are  citations  from 
John  i.  9 ;  ii.  4,  ascribed  to  Basilides ;  while  vii.  20  shows 
that  Basilides  and  Isidoms  his  scholar,  with  others  of  the 
sect,  are  quoted  by  Hippolytus  indiscriminately.  Philos., 
vi-  35»  compared  with  vi.  21,  29,  32,  34,  show  that  the  same 
is  true  of  the  references  to  Valentine.  Comp.  Scholten,  Die 
altesten  Zeugnisse,  65-68  ;  Martineau,  Seat  of  Authority,  196, 
197. 


306  APPENDIX 

The  first  mention  of  our  Gospel  is  found  in  the 
following  passage  from  Irenaeus,  written  not  before 
the  year  175. 1  "Afterwards  (Matthew,  Mark,  and 
Luke  having  written  their  Gospels),  John  the  disci- 
ple of  the  Lord,  the  same  that  had  leaned  upon  his 
breast,  himself  published  the  Gospel  while  living  at 
Ephesus  in  Asia." 2  Almost  contemporaneously 
with  this,  Theophilus,  Bishop  of  Antioch,  in  a 
treatise  written  for  a  personal  friend,  quotes  the 
verse,  "  In  the  beginning  was  the  Word,  and  the 
Word  was  with  God,"  8  as  written  by  "  John ;"  and 
although  he  does  not  say  what  John,  and  there  were 
other  ancient  authorities  of  the  same  name,  we  have 
little  reason  to  doubt  that  he  means  here  John  the 
Apostle.4  About  the  same  time,  or  somewhat  later, 
the  ancient  canon  of  Scripture,  called  the  Muratori 
Fragment,5  describes  the  Fourth  Gospel  as  "  that 
of  John,  one  of  the  disciples."  John  is  described 
as  repeating  the  entire  narrative  to  the  "disciples 
and  bishops,"  who  had  entreated  him  for  his  per- 
sonal recollections.6  Tatian  may  also  be  mentioned 
here,7  who  attempted  to  bring  the  various  fugitive 
Gospels  into  a  single  narrative,  and  seems  to  have 

1  Harnack,  after  a  very  exhaustive  examination,  fixes  the 
date  at  181-189.     Chron.,  i,  320. 

2  Hcer.,  iii.  I,  197. 

3  John  i.  i. 

4  Autolycus,  ii.  22. 

5  Various  dates  assigned,  from  170  to  210. 

6  Canon  Muratori,  i. 

7  Probably  between  160  and   180;    Harnack,  Chron.,  i. 
289. 


APPENDIX  307 

included   the   Fourth  Gospel  among  his  authori- 
ties.1 

The  most  important  of  these  witnesses  is,  of 
course,  Irenaeus ;  and  as  he  more  than  once  speaks 
of  the  Apostle  John  as  author  of  our  Gospel,  with- 
out intimating  any  doubts  in  the  matter,  this  would 
show  that  by  175  A.  D.  the  Gospel  had  been  known 
long  enough,  in  that  circle  of  churches,  at  least,  for 
its  authorship  to  have  passed  beyond  the  stage  of 
controversy.  It  has  been  urged,  also,  that  Ire- 
naeus's  personal  acquaintance  with  Polycarp,  who 
had  himself  been  instructed  by  John  and  other 
disciples  of  the  Lord,2  makes  his  testimony  almost 
decisive  in  the  matter,  as  if  coming  to  us  from  the 
very  inner  circle  of  the  Apostles.  When  we  con- 
sider, however,  that  his  intercourse  with  Polycarp 
was  that  of  a  young  boy  with  an  aged  man,  and 
that  he  has  trusted  wholly  to  his  memory  for  his 
reminiscences,3  and,  moreover,  that  Irenaeus  no- 
where intimates  that  his  ideas  about  the  Fourth 
Gospel  come  from  Polycarp,  but  suggests  a  very  dif- 
ferent source,4  we  see  plainly  how  much  weight  is 
to  be  ascribed  to  this  testimony.  It  is  from  precisely 
the  same  source,  we  must  remember,  that  Irenasus 
reports  the  strange  saying  of  Jesus  previously 
quoted,5  together  with  another  still  more  startling 
fact  that  Jesus  lived  to  be  more  than  forty  years  of 
age,  and  indeed  quite  into  old  age.6  When  we 

1  See  p.  102.  2  Iren.  iii.  3,  4 ;  Euseb.  v.  20,  5-7. 

8  Euseb.  v.  20,  7.  *  iii.  n,  8. 

6  P.  121.  6  u.  22,  5. 


308  APPENDIX 

think  for  a  moment  of  the  effect  upon  Christian 
chronology  or  upon  the  narratives  of  Acts  of  sup- 
posing Jesus  to  have  survived  beyond  the  middle 
of  the  century,  we  can  estimate  the  exact  value  to 
be  attached  to  Irenaeus's  reminiscence  of  Polycarp 
and  his  companions.  All  we  can  fairly  say  is  that 
at  that  date  (175)  our  Gospel  was  ascribed  to 
John,  and  must  have  been  written  long  enough  to 
have  made  this  belief  seem  credible.1 

It  should  be  said  that  the  account  given  in  this 
volume  of  the  character  and  origin  of  our  Gospel 
would  accord  quite  as  well  with  the  earlier  years  of 
the  second  century,  when  Gnostic  ideas  were  still 
fresh  and  undefined,  as  with  any  later  period ;  if 
only  there  were  any  signs  of  its  being  in  vogue  at 
that  time.  The  result  of  such  investigations  as  the 
above  seems  to  me  to  be,  not  necessarily  to  fix  a  very 
late  date  for  the  Gospel,  but  rather  to  show  the 
futility  of  trying  to  fix  any  year  or  decade  for  writ- 
ings of  this  kind.  Modern  critics,  while  on  the 
whole  inclining  to  place  the  Gospel  early  in  the 
century,  yet  vary  very  largely  in  the  dates  which 
they  assign.  Weizsacker,  while  pronouncing  it 
impossible  for  any  Apostle  to  have  written  the  Gos- 
pel, substituting  for  the  living  Jesus  he  had  known 

1  In  Asia  Minor  the  point  seems  to  have  been  still  a  mooted 
one,  as  one  body  of  Christians,  the  Alogi,  believed  the 
Gospel  to  have  been  written  by  Cerinthus,  an  early  Gnostic. 
Epiph.  li.  3.  The  opinions  which  prevailed  on  this  point  in 
the  fourth  century  can  be  inferred  from  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc., 
iii.  23,  24. 


APPENDIX  309 

the  incarnate  Logos,  yet  thinks  it  written  soon  after 
John's  death,  by  some  disciple  of  John,  eager  to 
vindicate  that  Apostle's  authority.1  Pfleiderer 
holds  that  it  was  written  between  the  time  of  Bar- 
Cochba3  and  that  of  Justin.8  Hilgenfeld  thinks 
the  author  stood  midway  between  Valentine  and 
Marcion,  receiving  his  doctrine  of  the  Paraclete 
from  the  agitation  which  was  soon  to  produce  Mon- 
tanism,  /.  e.,  about  150.*  O.  Holtzmann  puts  the 
date  at  ioo-i35.6  Schwegler,  i25~i5o.8  Jiilicher 
places  it  before  Justin,  ioo-i25.7  Weiss  thinks 
the  writer  a  contemporary  of  Clemens  Romanus, 
9o-ioo.8 

The  most  elaborate  attempt  among  recent  critics 
to  fix  the  exact  date  of  our  Gospel  is  by  Harnack, 
who  believes  the  author  to  have  been  not  the  Apos- 
tle, but  the  Presbyter  John  mentioned  by  Papias, 
who  became  early  confused  with  the  Apostle.9 
From  the  fact  that  Papias  makes  use  of  i  John, 
which  Harnack  regards  as  virtually  a  companion- 
piece  of  the  Fourth  Gospel,10  and  that  Irenaeus 
gives  a  quotation  from  the  Gospel  as  if  coming 
from  "  the  Presbyters,"  n  he  assigns  both  Gospel 

1  Apos.  Age,  ii.  206-214.  2  John  v.  43  ;  xi.  48. 

8  Apol.,  i.  61.     A.  D.  135-150.     Urchrist.,  777. 
4  Evang.  und  Brief e  Johan^  321. 
6  Johan.  Evang.,  75,  79. 

6  Nachapos.  Zeitalter^  ii.  345. 

7  Einleit.,  247,  250. 

8  Lehrbuch,  etc.,  29,  587. 

9  Euseb.,  Hist.  Ecc.,  iii.  39,  4-7. 

10  Euseb.  iii.  39,  17.  u  Iren.  v.  36,  2. 


310  APPENDIX 

and  Epistles  to  the  time  of  the  "  Presbyters,"  /.  e., 
110-117. *  This  involves  many  assumptions:  as 
that  Papias  actually  cites  I  John  by  name,  which 
Eusebius  does  not  assert,  and  that  Irenaeus  is 
always  citing  Papias  when  he  seems  to  be  giving 
his  own  reminiscences  from  the  Presbyters.  But 
even  if  we  allow  that  John  xiv.  2  was  actually  cited 
as  a  saying  of  the  Lord,  in  the  year  no,2  it  is 
hardly  necessary  to  call  an  entire  Gospel  into 
being  to  account  for  this  single  verse.  That  many 
of  these  "  Sayings  "  of  the  Lord  must  have  circu- 
lated long  before  they  were  collected  into  books 
is  too  obvious  to  be  insisted  upon. 

To  assume,  when  a  single  verse  or  single  idea 
is  found  corresponding  with  some  passage  in  one  or 
the  other  of  our  four  Gospels,  that  it  could  have 
come  only  from  those  Gospels  seems  to  me  a  singu- 
lar reflection  upon  the  mental  capacity  of  the  early 
Christians.  Why  should  not  men  have  had  their 
own  ideas  on  religious  matters  then  as  well  as 
now  ?  If  certain  notions  as  to  the  nature  of  Christ 
or  the  character  of  his  mission  were  afloat,  why 
should  we  not  look  for  traces  of  them  in  various 
quarters,  and  thought  out  on  different  lines  ?  Take, 
for  instance,  the  question  of  the  Logos,  any  men- 
tion of  which  in  the  second  century  is  commonly 
supposed  to  prove  an  acquaintance  with  the  Fourth 
Gospel.  Putting  that  Gospel  from  our  thoughts, 
and  looking  over  the  writings  of  the  second  cen- 
tury, we  find  many  minds  at  work  upon  this  philo- 

1  Chron.)  i.  333  n. ;  655-680.  2  Iren.  v.  36,  2. 


APPENDIX  311 

sophic  theme  in  many  individual  ways.  It  is  not 
unknown  to  Christian  thinkers  of  the  first  century.1 
Traces  of  it,  in  inchoate  form,  are  found  in  Clemens 
Romanus.2  The  unknown  author  of  the  Epistle  of 
Barnabas,  though  not  familiar  with  the  term  "  Lo- 
gos," is  yet  full  of  the  cognate  Gnostic  ideas,8  and 
sees  in  Jesus  the  celestial  Son  of  God,  who  visits 
the  earth  with  the  preordained  purpose  to  suffer  and 
die,  and  who  must  not  be  ranked  as  son  of  David 
or  son  of  man.4  Curious  traces  of  the  peculiar 
phraseology  which  this  theme  called  into  being 
appear  in  so  dry  and  circumstantial  a  treatise  as 
the  "Teaching  of  the  Twelve."5  The  "Shep- 
herd of  Hermas  "  touches  the  doctrine  in  a  highly 
mystic  and  sentimental  vein  ;  declaring  that  "  The 
Son  of  God  is  older  than  any  of  his  creatures  ;  so 
that  he  was  the  counselor  of  the  Father  in  his 
creation." fl  Justin  Martyr  conceives  of  the  theme 
in  very  much  the  same  manner  as  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel, yet  with  marked  differences  of  terminology  and 
thought.  He  dwells  more  on  the  humanity  of  the 
Christ ; 7  and  instead  of  assigning  the  Logos  abso- 

1  Heb.  i.  1-8;  iv.  12,  13;  Rev.  xix.  13. 

2  xxvii.  4. 

8  i.  5;  vi.  9;  x.  12. 

4  v.  5,  9, 10 ;  vi.  7 ;  xii.  10.     See  Keim,  Jesus  of  Nazara>  i. 
192. 

6  ix.,  x.    Harnack  finds  in  these  chapters  no  less  than 
twelve  reminiscences  of  the  language  of  the  Fourth  Gospel. 
Texte,  etc.,  ii.  79.- 

8  Sim.  ix.  12,  2 ;  ix.  14,  5;  ix.  14,  6. 

7  Trypho,  100  ;  ApoL,  i.  35. 


312  APPENDIX 

lute  preeminence,  introduces  it  as  only  one  of  sev- 
eral designations  of  the  Son  of  God,  and  couples 
with  the  Son  many  "  other  good  angels."  *  Athe- 
nagoras,  writing  some  time  after  our  Gospel  was  in 
circulation  (176-180),  yet  quite  unconscious  of  its 
existence,  deals  with  the  same  thought  on  an  even 
more  transcendental  plane  ;  conceiving  the  divine 
Logos  hardly  as  a  person,  rather  as  an  "  energizing 
power  in  all  things,"  or  as  simply  God's  thought 
in  calling  matter  into  life.2  Tatian,  Justin's  scholar, 
finds  the  Logos  the  best  term  for  that  "  light  of 
God,"  or  "spiritual  emanation  from  the  Father," 
of  which  he  speaks  to  the  Greeks  ; 8  and  is  at  pains 
to  show  that  though  issuing  from  God  at  God's 
simple  will,  the  Logos  yet  remains  part  of  God ; 
that  it  existed  beforehand  as  Logos-power  in  Deity, 
and  went  forth  not  by  "separation,"  but  by  "  dis- 
tribution." 4  Tatian  introduces  two  or  three  "  Say- 
ings "  of  Jesus  similar  to  those  in  the  Fourth  Gos- 
pel, yet  nowhere  mentions  that  Gospel,  or  the  Apos- 
tle John,  and  shows  no  consciousness  that  a  high 
apostolic  authority  has  been  following  the  same 
thoughts.6  Clem.  Alexandrinus,  still  later,  is  famil- 
iar enough  with  our  Gospel,  citing  it  freely,  and  men- 
tioning once  or  twice  John  the  Apostle  ; 6  but  goes 
his  own  way,  and  thinks  his  own  thoughts  of  the 
Logos  and  Gnosis. 

1  ApoL,  i.  6,  63  ;   Trypho,  61,  128. 

2  Supplic.y  4,  10,  24.  3  Orat.  ad  Grac.,  7,  13. 

4  5»  7-  6  4,  i3>  19- 

6  Strom.,  v.  12 ;  vi.  15 ;  De  Div.  Serv.,  8. 


APPENDIX  -313 

Are  all  these  utterances,  as  we  are  told,  echoes 
of  one  single  writing,  which  must  be  held  sacred  at 
any  cost,  though  at  the  expense  of  all  the  think- 
ing of  a  century ;  or  are  they,  as  they  seem,  the 
spontaneous  efforts  of  many  thoughtful  souls  to 
grasp  one  of  the  loftiest  ideals  which  had  yet  pre- 
sented itself  to  the  Christian  mind?  In  the  one 
case,  the  second  century  is  shown  to  be  alive  to  the 
new  thought  of  the  hour  and  receptive  of  its  best 
truths  j  in  the  other,  it  is  more  barren  of  intellectual 
and  spiritual  activity  than  the  twelfth  century,  or 
the  much  maligned  eighteenth. 

In  any  case,  we  may  well  ask  what  dignity  a 
Scripture  writing  gains  by  having  an  early  date 
assigned  to  it,  if  at  the  same  time  it  remained  for 
two  or  three  generations  unknown  or  unprized? 
In  what  sense  is  a  book  extant  before  it  is  read  ? 
If  the  Fourth  Gospel  existed  at  all  before  the 
middle  of  the  second  century,  it  could  only  have 
been  as  Shakespeare  or  Goethe  exists  to-day  for 
the  Khalifa  of  the  Soudan ;  or  as  Wheaton  and 
Phillimore  exist,  for  the  Congress  of  the  United 
States. 

For  a  complete  resum'e  of  the  course  of  criticism 
on  the  Fourth  Gospel  from  the  beginning,  see  Holtz- 
mann,  "  Einleitung  ins  N.  Test,"  427-475.  Holtz- 
mann  himself  claims  that  the  Gospel  mirrors  on  its 
pages  the  entire  century  between  John  the  Baptist 
and  the  writer,  /.  e.,  A.  D.  30-I30.1  See,  also, 
Baur,  "Kanon.  Evangelien,"  77-389;  Hilgenfeld, 
1  Einleit.  ins  N.  Test.,  451. 


3i4  APPENDIX 

"  Evang.  und  Briefe  Johannes ;  "  also,  "  Die  Gnosis 
und  das  Johan.  Evang. ; "  O.  Holtzmann,  "  Johan. 
Evangelium  ;  "  Weizsacker,  "  Apos.  Age,"  ii.  206- 
226;  Pfleiderer,  "  Urchristenthum,"  695-786;  Jii- 
licher,  "  Einleitung  ins  N.  Test.,"  238-250 ;  Har- 
nack,  "Chron.,"  i.  656-680;  Renan,  "Life  of 
Jesus,"  Boston,  1896,  pp.  423-478  ;  "  Authorship 
of  Fourth  Gospel,"  Ezra  Abbot,  Boston,  1880; 
"  Institute  Essays,"  Boston,  1880  (F.  Tiffany  on 
Gospel  of  John)  ;  J.  J.  Taylor's  "  Fourth  Gospel," 
London,  1867;  Martineau's  "Authority  in  Re- 
ligion," pp.  189-236  ;  Sanday's  "  Authorship  and 
Hist.  Character  of  Fourth  Gospel,"  1872. 


INDEX 


INDEX 


ABRAXAS,  163  n. 

Acts  of  Pilate,  74. 

./Eons,  170. 

Alexandrine  Philosophy,  140,  202. 

Allegory,  41,  44,  162,  174,  180. 

Apocalypse.     See  Revelation. 

Apologies  of  Justin,  64,  261. 

Aristides,  270. 

Aristion,  6,  243. 

Barnabas,  Epistle  of,  40-43,  40  n., 

255- 

Basilides,  161-167,  287. 
Bishop,  position  of  in  early  church, 

23,  So- 

Canon,  100. 

Catholic  Church,  193  n. 

Christ  and  God,  according  to  Fourth 
Gospel,  227. 

Christianity  and  Judaism,  65,  85 

Clement  of  Alexandria,  189,  287. 

Clement  of  Rome,  21-31;  First  Epis- 
tle of,  22-30,  248,  249;  Second 
Epistle  of,  46-49. 

Colossians,  Epistle  to,  283-286. 

Comforter,  181,  232  n. 

Demiurge,  155,  171,  219  n. 
Devil,  171,  219  n. 
Diatessaron  of  Tatian,  101,  271. 
Docetism,  58  n.,  90,  158,   166,  236, 

298-302. 
Dualism,  87,  i57n. 

Egyptians,  Gospel  of,  48,49^,  53  n. 

Encratites,  i5gn. 

Ephesians,  Epistle  of,  91,  283-286. 


Ephesus,  3,  4,  204  n. 
Eucharist,  52, 220-222. 
Eusebius,  9,  18. 

Fourth  Gospel,  17, 202-240 ;  authen- 
ticity, 203,  301-314  ;  its  relation  to 
Alexandrine  School,  202,  295 ;  to 
Justin  Martyr,  80;  to  Synoptics, 
204,  240,  293. 

Gnosticism,  117-193,  292  ;  and  Chris- 
tianity, 190-192, 195  n. ;  and  Fourth 
Gospel,  209 n.,  295;  and  New  Tes- 
tament, 199-201 ;  name  of,  288. 

Gospel,  first  use  of  name,  47,  50, 
77n. ;  of  Egyptians,  48,  49 n.,  53  n.; 
of  Hebrews,  9,  10, 81  n.,  243,  260 ; 
of  John,  see  Fourth  Gospel;  of 
Justin,  71-81 ;  Luke,  17,92;  Mar- 
cion,  92-95 ;  Mark,  u,  12,  13,  17, 
19;  Matthew,  14-17.  *9>  53,  79 1 
Peter,  55-62,  258-261. 

Gospels,  formation  of,  13,  16,  17,  30, 
39,  51,  54,  61,  78,  8!,  92,  97  ;  Syn- 
optic, 273-277;  compared  with 
Epistles  of  Paul,  139 ;  why  only 
four?  103. 

Hebdomad,  163. 

Hebrews,  Epistle  to,  27,91  ;  Gospel 

of,  9,  10,  81  n.,  243,  260. 
Hegesippus,  271. 
Hermas,  Shepherd  of,  43-46. 
Hierapolis,  3,  8. 
Holy  Spirit,  233,  298. 

Ignatius,  Epistles  of,  32-35,  250- 
252;  Martyrdom  of,  31,32. 


INDEX 


Immortality,  116,  1300. 
Irenaeus,  103,  307,  117. 

Jehovah,  an  inferior  God,    87-89, 

i54- 
John  the  Apostle,  First  Epistle  of, 

9 ;  Gospel  of,  see  Fourth  Gospel ; 

Revelation  of,  9,  79  n.,  123-128, 

245,  277-281; 

John  the  Baptist,  209,  210. 
John  the  Presbyter,  6,  u,  243,  245. 
Justin    Martyr,    63-83,    261 ;     and 

Fourth  Gospel,  80;  Conversion  of, 

64;  his  Memoirs  of  Apostles,  77, 

262,  263-266. 

Lazarus,  224,  297. 

Logia,  5,  14,  15,  16,  98 n.,  242. 

Logos,  in   Christian    writers,    310; 

Fourth  Gospel,  207,  294 ;   Philo, 

181. 

Lord's  Supper,  220-222, 
Luke,  Gospel  of,  17,  92. 

Marcion,    83-95,     138>   186  n. ;    his 
church,  95,    160 ;  Gospel,   92-95, 
266-270;  Theology,  153-158. 
Mark,  Gospel  of,  11-13,  i?>  19- 
Matthew,  Gospel  of,  14-17,  19,  53, 

79- 

Memoirs  of  Apostles,  77. 

Messianic  Kingdom,  in  New  Testa- 
ment, 111-115,  281;  Jewish  con- 
ception of,  108-110;  Paul's  view 
of,  142, 144;  strange  prediction  of , 

121. 

Millennium,  as  held  by  Papias,  106- 
123 ;  general  belief  of  second  cen- 
tury, 131  ;  origin  of  belief,  107-110. 

Miracles  of  Fourth  Gospel,  222. 

Montanism,  192  n. 

Muratori  Fragment,  100. 

Neo-Platonism,  184. 

New  Testament,  formation  of,  100. 

Nicodemus,  80,  212-214. 

Ogdoad,  163. 


Old  Testament  the  only  Scriptures, 

26,  31. 
Oral  Tradition,  6,  7. 

Papias,  as  Scripture  investigator,  3- 
20,  241,  245-248;  his  belief  in 
millennium,  106-123. 

Paraclete,  192  n.,  231-233. 

Paul,  his  conversion,  145  ;  Epistles, 
17,  18,  28,  39,  8in.,  91,  138;  view 
of  Christ,  139,  148-152,  282. 

Peter,  First  Epistle  of,  9 ;  Gospel  of, 
55-62,  258-261 ;  Preaching  of,  13. 

Philo,  179-183,  288. 

Pistis  Sophia,  291. 

Pleroma,  170,  175. 

Plotinus,  184. 

Polycarp,  Epistle  of,  37,  253-255 ; 
Martyrdom  of,  36,  253. 

Presbyters,  6,  8,  24,  243. 

Regeneration,  in  Fourth  Gospel,  80, 

296,  304. 
Resurrection,    116,14511.;  of  flesh, 

115-121 ;  of  Jesus,  145,  147  n. 
Revelation,  book  of,  9,  7911.,  91, 123- 

128,  245,  277-281. 

Sayings  of  Jesus,  5,  14,  15,  16,  26, 

30,  98  n.,  242. 
Scriptures,  Christian,  7,  35,  39,  96- 

104;  Jewish,  26,  40,  68,  75,  85. 
Sermon  on  Mount,  79. 
Sophia,  170. 

Sunday  Observances,  82. 
Synoptic  Gospels,  273-277. 

Tatian,  101,  271,  306. 

Teaching  of  Twelve  Apostles,  49-54, 

257- 

Tertullian,  86,  118,  191. 
Trances,  146,  183. 
Transmigration,  119. 
Trypho,  Dialogue  with,  64. 

Valentine,  167-177,  287. 
Woman  of  Samaria,  215. 


(Cfce  ffitoetffoe  $tt& 

CAMBRIDGE,  MASSACHUSETTS,  U.  S.  A. 

ELECTROTYPED  AND  PRINTED  BY 

H.  O.  HOUGHTON  AND  CO. 


411470 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA  LIBRARY 


